TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Evidence Discussion => Topic started by: TalkLeft on March 29, 2013, 11:49:11 AM

Title: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: TalkLeft on March 29, 2013, 11:49:11 AM
I have a long post on the letter from a factual and legal standpoint here (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/29/74056/4011). I think we need a new thread for it under evidence so I'm starting one.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 29, 2013, 12:41:53 PM
BDLR whines about being called on holding back discovery, and includes as an exhibit a written statement from W8 that was prepared around March 19, 2012 and not given to the defense until March 13, 2013? Okay.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 29, 2013, 12:52:17 PM
BDLR whines about being called on holding back discovery, and includes as an exhibit a written statement from W8 that was prepared around March 19, 2012 and not given to the defense until March 13, 2013? Okay.

It may be that the state first received the handwritten note on March 15, the day that defense took the deposition of Sybrina.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 29, 2013, 12:59:48 PM
It may be that the state first received the handwritten note on March 15, the day that defense took the deposition of Sybrina.

That's a good point. If that's the case, the question is why Fulton didn't turn it over before. Is it because she realized the statement was inconsistent with W8's later statements? Why did Fulton finally decide to turn it over if she'd withheld it so long?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: RickyJim on March 29, 2013, 01:28:18 PM
That reference she makes to taking a shortcut is intriguing.  Frank Taafe points out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNUHIAVWJG0) that Martin could have cut diagonally through TRATL by the pond to quickly get from Frank's house to the one he was staying at.  Zimmerman wouldn't be able to follow him in the car or see Trayvon in the darkness.  But Martin apparently took the long way around by heading towards to clubhouse and up TTL.  I can't identify  any part of his route as a shortcut.  Starting from the 711, he was really taking his time getting home including the time by the dog walk.  Good luck to the defense to see if they can get what she really heard on the phone out of her.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 29, 2013, 01:36:23 PM
That's a good point. If that's the case, the question is why Fulton didn't turn it over before. Is it because she realized the statement was inconsistent with W8's later statements? Why did Fulton finally decide to turn it over if she'd withheld it so long?

Given Bernardo's skill at interviewing, I suspect Sybrina was not previously asked if she had any written materials pertaining to the case, and the defense, being recently off a partial deposition of Witness 8, may have learned that Witness 8 handed a note to Sybrina.  Under those circumstances, Sybrina would have been told by Bernardo, to bring the note, if she still had it, or be prepared to explain being unable to produce it at her upcoming deposition.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 29, 2013, 01:45:12 PM
Orlando Sentinel publishes an article about the subject letter.

George Zimmerman case: State reveals new letter from key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-girlfriend-letter-20130329,0,5093198.story) -  By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel, 3:08 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2013

"I'm glad I have it now. I don't know when (the state) received it," O'Mara said, adding prosecutors would not say when they did.


Well, there goes my speculation that the letter may have first surfaced in the deposition with Sybrina.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 29, 2013, 01:59:16 PM
Quote
"I'm glad I have it now. I don't know when (the state) received it," O'Mara said, adding prosecutors would not say when they did.

So his exhibit is new evidence turned over almost a year after it was written, but he refuses to say when he got it. Is BDLR trying to establish a new standard for chutzpah? I hope along with their reply the defense files a motion demanding more information on the "letter."
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 29, 2013, 02:05:02 PM
I hope along with their reply the defense files a motion demanding more information on the "letter."

Maybe Nelson will give them another deposition of Sybrina, so they can ask her what she did with it.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 29, 2013, 02:06:21 PM
So his exhibit is new evidence turned over almost a year after it was written, but he refuses to say when he got it. Is BDLR trying to establish a new standard for chutzpah? I hope along with their reply the defense files a motion demanding more information on the "letter."

DENIED.  Until such time as the defense can show that it has exhausted its means of finding that out.  It's not chutzpah when the courts give a nod and a wink.

Incidentally, if you haven't read the piece at the Sentinel, O'Mara says that the prosecution gave him a copy of this letter on March 13, the same day as the deposition of Witness 8.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 29, 2013, 02:16:22 PM
The Orlando Sentinel says:

Quote
The one-page letter largely corroborates Witness 8's other accounts of what she heard on the phone: Trayvon was returning from the store when he noticed a man following him and fled.

I don't think the writer was being purposely misleading, but "corroborates" seems like the wrong word. "Matches" would be better. The same witness repeating a similar story does not corroborate the witness's statement.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 29, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
The Orlando Sentinel says:
Quote
The one-page letter largely corroborates Witness 8's other accounts of what she heard on the phone: Trayvon was returning from the store when he noticed a man following him and fled.

The letter doesn't say Martin fled.

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 29, 2013, 04:28:30 PM
...
Incidentally, if you haven't read the piece at the Sentinel, O'Mara says that the prosecution gave him a copy of this letter on March 13, the same day as the deposition of Witness 8.

There are a number of reports elsewhere that they didn't get it until the 15th.

Since the article doesn't have that part in quotation marks indicating that that was exactly what O'Mara said, I'm going to withhold final judgement on exactly which day it was, although it was certainly about a year late.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 29, 2013, 04:39:37 PM
There are a number of reports elsewhere that they didn't get it until the 15th.

Since the article doesn't have that part in quotation marks indicating that that was exactly what O'Mara said, I'm going to withhold final judgement on exactly which day it was, although it was certainly about a year late.

The prosecution filing of supplemental discovery #13 assigns the March 15 date as the first production to the defense, so I can understand how many reports use that date.

I think more important that the difference between March 13 and March 15 is the question of when the state obtained the handwritten page described as a March 19, 2012 letter by Witness 8.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 29, 2013, 07:22:02 PM
The prosecution filing of supplemental discovery #13 assigns the March 15 date as the first production to the defense, so I can understand how many reports use that date.

I think more important that the difference between March 13 and March 15 is the question of when the state obtained the handwritten page described as a March 19, 2012 letter by Witness 8.

I think whether the defense had it on the 13th, when they were attempting to depose Witness 8, author of the letter, or whether they didn't get it until the 15th, perhaps in time to at least ask Sybrina about it, matters.

And this letter not surfacing until almost a year later certainly matters.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 29, 2013, 08:09:22 PM
I think whether the defense had it on the 13th, when they were attempting to depose Witness 8, author of the letter, or whether they didn't get it until the 15th, perhaps in time to at least ask Sybrina about it, matters.

If the defense had the letter before deposing Fulton, I would assume they asked her when she gave it to the prosecution. That seems at odds with O'Mara's comments about BDLR refusing to say when the letter was turned over, though perhaps it's not.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 29, 2013, 09:25:05 PM
If the defense had the letter before deposing Fulton, I would assume they asked her when she gave it to the prosecution. That seems at odds with O'Mara's comments about BDLR refusing to say when the letter was turned over, though perhaps it's not.

I suppose it's possible, if they got it in time, that they found out from Sybrina when and how she got it and when and how she turned it over to the state and Bernie just wanted to be a dick about it anyway.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 29, 2013, 09:52:12 PM
I suppose it's possible, if they got it in time, that they found out from Sybrina when and how she got it and when and how she turned it over to the state...

I wish the Orlando Sentinel reporter had asked O'Mara if he was able to ask Fulton about the letter. That's quite an interesting question.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 30, 2013, 12:34:09 AM
I think whether the defense had it on the 13th, when they were attempting to depose Witness 8, author of the letter, or whether they didn't get it until the 15th, perhaps in time to at least ask Sybrina about it, matters.

The reason I think it doesn't matter as to Witness 8, is that O'Mara is not done deposing Witness 8.  If I'm in error on that point, then I agree, withholding the letter until after Witness 8 has been deposed would be a big deal.

Assuming the letter has been know to and in the possession of the state for a year, the delay in turnover is part of the pattern of delay that O'Mara is requesting sanctions for.  My opinion is that the prosecution is improvidently brought in the first place, and it does not surprise me to see the prosecution acting unprofessionally.  Same for the bench.  Not that I think all Florida courts operate this way, but whenever I've been looking, they do.  Maybe it's my fault ;)

I'm also reminded of O'Mara's request that some of the detective and police witnesses be put under a court gag order to not talk amongst themselves about the case or their depositions.  I think a similar gag order would be prudent toward Witness 8.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
We don't know if the prosecution has the actual letter, or just copies.

Whatever they have, we don't know that they received it directly from Sybrina. There may be other parties between them in the chain of custody.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 30, 2013, 10:55:29 AM
We don't know if the prosecution has the actual letter, or just copies.

Whatever they have, we don't know that they received it directly from Sybrina. There may be other parties between them in the chain of custody.

I just had a thought.  What if Witness 8 dictated that letter to someone else who did the actual writing?

That would possibly explain "Trevon".
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 12:43:57 PM
Ignore my previous post which I deleted. Wasn't thinking and not enough coffee yet. (that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it)

If it was written by someone else it wasn't likely a member of Trayvon's family. Presumably they would know the spelling of his name. Did we ever find out who was in the room with DD?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on March 30, 2013, 01:16:29 PM
I just had a thought.  What if Witness 8 dictated that letter to someone else who did the actual writing?

That would possibly explain "Trevon".
That possible explanation for "Trevon" is sure to make the prosecution and Team Crump happy, but it raises another question:

Why would she need someone else to write this short, simple note for her?

Moreover, the handwriting isn't inconsistent with what you'd expect someone of her age and average writing ability to produce. If it had more polish and looked like someone who'd been subjected to penmanship classes, maybe.

But this looks like "teenage girl handwriting," not like "write this for me 'cause your writing is nicer."
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 01:27:28 PM
Maybe DD was trying to pull a Crump. Figured if she wrote something out she wouldn't have to be "deposed".

In all seriousness, a written statement is something a lawyer or LE would want from her. I think someone was in the room with her just prior to the Crump interview. A lawyer that took (maybe even wrote out themselves) her written statement. The most likely candidates would be someone from Team Crump.

EDIT: Of course I don't know it for certain, but it really does seem someone wanted something in writing. Considering how reluctant she's been to tell the story I doubt it was her idea.

EDIT2: Looking forward to handwriting comparison to others in the room with her that day. Whoever those people were that didn't know how to spell Trayvon's name.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 01:49:20 PM
I think someone was in the room with her just prior to the Crump interview. A lawyer that took (maybe even wrote out themselves) her written statement.

Why assume it was written at the last minute? Assuming the 3/19 date is correct, it could have been written at any time during the day.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 02:00:51 PM
Why assume it was written at the last minute? Assuming the 3/19 date is correct, it could have been written at any time during the day.
I don't assume it was written at the last minute. I do think it was written when DD was at the house prior to (waiting for) the interview with Crump. Do you really see DD, as reluctant as she evidently was to say anything, deciding on her own to put something in writing? I think someone pressed her for a written statement (or wrote it out for her) just like they had to press her to even come forward.

EDIT: Whoever wrote that out wasn't someone that knew the correct spelling of Trayvon's name. Which I'd think would exclude anyone that knew Trayvon for years like friends or family.

As an aside, there seems to be a notable absence of spelling errors in that letter. Having heard DD speak it's difficult for me to imagine her spelling skills would be much better.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 30, 2013, 02:17:55 PM
As an aside, there seems to be a notable absence of spelling errors in that letter. Having heard DD speak it's difficult for me to imagine her spelling skills would be much better.

The note did misspell "too" as "to," but the spelling does seem to be better than what I'd expect from someone with W8's apparent grammatical skill.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 02:19:07 PM
Could someone refresh my memory? Where was DD when she was interviewed by Crump and who was with her? What was the address? Was she at her address that both the state and she refused to give out?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 02:29:20 PM
Assuming the 3/19 date is correct, it could have been written at any time during the day.

Do you really see DD, as reluctant as she evidently was to say anything, deciding on her own to put something in writing?

No.

I don't see what that has to do with the time of day the note was written.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 02:33:26 PM
Do you really see DD, as reluctant as she evidently was to say anything, deciding on her own to put something in writing?


No.

I don't see what that has to do with the time of day the note was written.

Huh? I'm not understanding your point. Are we in agreement that it was written the day of DD's interview with Crump and prior to it? At least as far as we have evidence of when it was written?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 02:39:34 PM
Are we in agreement that it was written the day of DD's interview with Crump and prior to it? At least as far as we have evidence of when it was written?

That is what we have been told.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 30, 2013, 02:43:32 PM
What doesn't seem logical to me is that BDLR says:

Quote
Witness 8 did everything she could to keep from being identified, including using her nickname so she would not be subjected to what is now happening to her. See attached letter Witness 8 gave Victim's mother, Sybrina Fulton, prior to the recorded phone call with Trayvon Martin's (sic) attorney, Benjamin Crump.

What in the content of the letter supports the assertion that "Witness 8 did everything she could to keep from being identified"? If, as some have conjectured, the redacted writing is a nickname to keep her identity secret, why would it need to be redacted? And though I now agree with nomatter_nevermind that the redaction isn't too long to be a full name, I think it's too long to be a normal nickname, especially "DeeDee."
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 30, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
Could someone refresh my memory? Where was DD when she was interviewed by Crump and who was with her? What was the address? Was she at her address that both the state and she refused to give out?

I think her location at that time is undisclosed, and maybe unknown.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 02:49:35 PM
Where was DD when she was interviewed by Crump and who was with her? What was the address? Was she at her address that both the state and she refused to give out?

I don't think the answers to any of these questions have been made public.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 02:53:12 PM
Here's my theory: I don't think Crump would have invited the media unless he was confident the interview would take place. It would be quite embarrassing for him if this soon to be star witness was a no show with the media bearing witness to his inability to provide what he evidently said he was going to provide to get them to show up. I think he had someone with DD to guarantee it would take place. I think that person wrote the letter for DD.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 02:55:00 PM
I think it's too long to be a normal nickname, especially "DeeDee."

I wouldn't assume 'Dee Dee' was the name de la Rionda had in mind. I don't know that W-8 has ever used that name, or Crump for that matter. It was Gutman who felt the need to use a pseudonym for her.

Has Crump ever said W-8 was Trayvon's 'girlfriend'? I think that meme may be all on Gutman too.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 30, 2013, 02:59:45 PM
Has Crump ever said W-8 was Trayvon's 'girlfriend'? I think that meme may be all on Gutman too.
From his March 20 presser, this is Crump speaking ...
She is a minor. Her parents are very worried about her.  She is traumatized over this. This was her really, really close personal friend. They were dating. ...
In fact, she couldn't even go to his wake she was so sick. Her mother had to take her to     the hospital. She spent the night in the hospital. She is traumatized beyond anything you could imagine. And we all were teenagers, so we can imagine how that is when you think somebody's really special, and you call it puppy love or whatever you want to call it. Then suddenly and tragically, this is taken away and you have, unfortunately, a first-hand account of it. So I will ask you again on behalf of the family and on behalf of the young lady's family if you would please respect their privacy. She is a minor.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 03:04:22 PM
From his March 20 presser, this is Crump speaking ...

I knew Crump said 'dating' and 'puppy love'. I was asking if he ever said 'girlfriend'.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 03:19:15 PM
I knew Crump said 'dating' and 'puppy love'. I was asking if he ever said 'girlfriend'.

What's the significance if any? Even if he didn't say that exact word isn't it implied by "dating" and "puppy love"? Would any reasonable person think that she wasn't his girlfriend given such a representation of their relationship?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 30, 2013, 03:22:48 PM
I knew Crump said 'dating' and 'puppy love'. I was asking if he ever said 'girlfriend'.

Even if he did (and I don't see where he did), his meaning and your meaning might not be the same meaning.  She's a girl, and Crump did say she was his friend.  He added "dating" and "puppy love," which nearly everybody would take as an indication of more than casual friends, neighbor friend, etc.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: TalkLeft on March 30, 2013, 03:25:22 PM
What difference does it make?  It's what he was trying to communicate, whatever word he used. He portrayed them as romantically and emotionally very close. And he never corrected the media's continual referral to her as his girlfriend.

Quote
She is traumatized over this. This was her really, really close personal friend. They were dating. And so it's a situation where to know that you were the last person to talk to the young man who you thought was one of the most special people in the world to you, and know that he got killed moments after he was talking to you, is just riveting to this young lady.

In fact, she couldn't even go to his wake she was so sick. Her mother had to take her to the hospital. She spent the night in the hospital. She is traumatized beyond anything you could imagine. And we all were teenagers, so we can imagine how that is when you think somebody's really special, and you call it puppy love or whatever you want to call it. Then suddenly and tragically, this is taken away and you have, unfortunately, a first-hand account of it. So I will ask you again on behalf of the family and on behalf of the young lady's family if you would please respect their privacy. She is a minor.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 30, 2013, 03:25:47 PM
Here's my theory: I don't think Crump would have invited the media unless he was confident the interview would take place. It would be quite embarrassing for him if this soon to be star witness was a no show with the media bearing witness to his inability to provide what he evidently said he was going to provide to get them to show up. I think he had someone with DD to guarantee it would take place. I think that person wrote the letter for DD.

The circle of embarrassment would be very tight.  If the witness doesn't show that night, then there is no news story.  The only press present was Crump's good friends from ABC.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 30, 2013, 03:32:23 PM
What doesn't seem logical to me is that BDLR says:

What in the content of the letter supports the assertion that "Witness 8 did everything she could to keep from being identified"? If, as some have conjectured, the redacted writing is a nickname to keep her identity secret, why would it need to be redacted? And though I now agree with nomatter_nevermind that the redaction isn't too long to be a full name, I think it's too long to be a normal nickname, especially "DeeDee."

If the nickname is one this person actually uses, then it is redacted to eliminate the possibility that Witness 8's identity will become public that way.  I think the redaction is presented to the defense as well.  In other words, the defense doesn't know what's under the redaction.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 03:37:59 PM
The circle of embarrassment would be very tight.  If the witness doesn't show that night, then there is no news story.  The only press present was Crump's good friends from ABC.

Still, failure to provide the 'scoop' he promised would be embarrassing. In any case I'm sure MOM asked DD where she was and who was with her. We may find out at some point. If Crump did have someone with her would it really matter? It wouldn't be illegal. Even if that person did write out the letter for DD that wouldn't be illegal either. AFAIK. As long as it isn't a misrepresentation of what DD wanted to be written anyway.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: TalkLeft on March 30, 2013, 03:43:32 PM
Matt Gutman aired this report  (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/florida-teen-killed-community-watch-member-15952344)on March 19, the day Crump took her deposition. In it, he has a sit-down interview with Tracy and Sybrina. It's the same weekend that the 911 calls were released pursuant to the lawsuit Crump filed. I'd bet Crump was in Sanford that weekend, not Tallahassee, and he went from Sanford to Miami for the interview with Witness 8.

Gutman got so many things wrong in the report and it is so biased. But it may explain why Crump chose him for the Dee Dee interview.  Were the Martins in Sanford over that weekend for the release of the 911 calls? There's a clip of a news conference with them and Crump that appears to be in Sanford.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 04:03:04 PM
What's the significance if any?

What difference does it make?

I don't know that it has any significance or makes any difference. It's just a point of curiosity for me.

De la Rionda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) asked Dee Dee if she and Trayvon were dating (2:26). Her response was an unintelligible grunt, but de la Rionda seems to have taken it as a negative.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on March 30, 2013, 04:08:42 PM
I think it's a safe bet that nobody would have the letter unless Crump wanted them to have it. Sybrina surely wouldn't have handed it over (assuming it was her) without Crump's approval. I can't imagine anyone in Trayvon's family doing anything like that without going through Crump first. So my question is: What does Crump gain from its release? If anything. If it was given to the state early on why would they bother sitting on it and not put it in discovery? On the surface it doesn't seem to harm their case. If it was given to them recently then again I ask: What does Crump get out of it? I also wonder who handed it over. I'd tend to think it would have been in Crump's possession. Isn't it something the family would have handed over to their lawyer as soon as they got it?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on March 30, 2013, 04:13:16 PM
I don't know that it has any significance or makes any difference. It's just a point of curiosity for me.

From your inquiry, I took it you were seeking to attribute the meme to somebody, and wondered if the meme might be attributable to Gutman, rather than to Crump.  Still a point of curiosity, but at least it had a purpose in assigning the lies to the right liars.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: TalkLeft on March 30, 2013, 04:30:01 PM
De la Rionda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) asked Dee Dee if she and Trayvon were dating (2:26). Her response was an unintelligible grunt, but de la Rionda seems to have taken it as a negative.

Didn't she tell him "we were getting there?"
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 30, 2013, 04:36:55 PM
... And he never corrected the media's continual referral to her as his girlfriend.

But then again he never corrected the media' continual referral to her as a minor, either, so maybe in Crumpland they cancel each other out, no harm, no foul.

I wonder when he first realized that she didn't actually go to the hospital, and if he was shocked, or Captain Renault shocked.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 04:48:03 PM
From your inquiry, I took it you were seeking to attribute the meme to somebody, and wondered if the meme might be attributable to Gutman, rather than to Crump. 

Gutman definitely. He called her that the first time he referred to her, in the first sentence of his first article (http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?31,1355960,1355961) on the subject.

Quote
A phone call from slain black teenager Trayvon Martin to his girlfriend seconds before he was shot dead by a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain "blows ... out of the water" the shooter's self-defense claim and he should be arrested "right now," a lawyer for Martin's family said today.

Attorney Benjamin Crump spoke after ABC News reported exclusively the existence of a phone call between Martin and his girlfriend [snip]

"This young lady connects the dots," said Crump.

Gutman said 'his girlfriend' in an indirect quote attributed to Crump, but when he quoted Crump directly it was 'This young lady'.

For many people, 'Trayvon's girlfriend' has become their primary way of designating W-8. That is why I am curious about the history of the meme, and why the other expressions people have mentioned aren't so interesting to me.   
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 05:00:41 PM
Didn't she tell him "we were getting there?"

SAO, 4/2, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) 3:22-30   
Quote
De la Rionda: Were you kind of his girlfriend, or just kind of . . . ? I don't mean to get personal, but, I'm not gonna ask you any more, other than that. Were you, you guys . . .?

Dee Dee: Yeah, we was getting there.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 30, 2013, 05:18:01 PM
I wouldn't assume 'Dee Dee' was the name de la Rionda had in mind. I don't know that W-8 has ever used that name, or Crump for that matter. It was Gutman who felt the need to use a pseudonym for her.

I think it's very, very likely BDLR was referring to the nickname "DeeDee."
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 30, 2013, 05:26:58 PM
It was Gutman who felt the need to use a pseudonym for her.

Gutman says (http://parkscrump.com/trayvon-martin-video-shows-no-blood-or-bruises-on-george-zimmerman/): "The 16-year-old girl, who is only being identified as DeeDee, recounted the final moments of her conversation with Martin before the line went dead." He may be misleading us, but the clear implication is that he got the name DeeDee from someone else.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 30, 2013, 05:37:56 PM
Gutman says (http://parkscrump.com/trayvon-martin-video-shows-no-blood-or-bruises-on-george-zimmerman/): "The 16-year-old girl, who is only being identified as DeeDee, recounted the final moments of her conversation with Martin before the line went dead." He may be misleading us, but the clear implication is that he got the name DeeDee from someone else.

I don't think that implication is clear. An alternate interpretation would be 'is only being identified [by me] as DeeDee'.

Has 'DeeDee' been used by anyone close to the action other than Gutman?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 30, 2013, 06:42:55 PM
I don't think that implication is clear. An alternate interpretation would be 'is only being identified [by me] as DeeDee'.

I disagree.  Saying "who is only being identified as DeeDee" clearly suggests to me that someone besides Gutman was calling her DeeDee. If he wanted to say he came up with the name, he should have said something like, "who I'll call DeeDee."

In any event, I've got to admit I'm perplexed. It's hard to believe W8 revealed her actual full name to Fulton but not to Crump. It's hard to see what sort of nickname would require such a long redaction. If the redacted area is a statement about not revealing her name, it's hard to see why it would be redacted.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 30, 2013, 11:41:55 PM
I think Gutman would have wrapped himself in the ABC flag and said "...who we (meaning the network) are only identifying as..." or "who we are going to call Dee Dee in order to protect her identity".

Kind of like Victoria's "We are not amused".

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 31, 2013, 12:01:06 AM
I think Gutman would have wrapped himself in the ABC flag and said "...who we (meaning the network) are only identifying as..." or "who we are going to call Dee Dee in order to protect her identity".

I certainly don't put it past Gutman to be misleading, but using it like that would be misleading.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on March 31, 2013, 10:20:34 AM
De la Rionda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) asked Dee Dee if she and Trayvon were dating (2:26). Her response was an unintelligible grunt, but de la Rionda seems to have taken it as a negative.

Given BDLR's additional "I don't mean to get personal, but, I'm not gonna ask you any more, other than that," I think he took her going non-verbal at that point as a sign of embarrassment, not as a denial that they were involved romantically.

Hence the brief gentle fishing expedition that got her to admit to "gettin' there."

If he took it as a negative, he could've asked her to state clearly that they were not romantically involved in any way, and pressed further about the nature of their relationship.

(And yes, I know we're talking about BDLR here, but he did press her for a straight answer on a couple of other points.)

[BBM]
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 31, 2013, 11:41:42 AM
Given BDLR's additional "I don't mean to get personal, but, I'm not gonna ask you any more, other than that," I think he took her going non-verbal at that point as a sign of embarrassment, not as a denial that they were involved romantically.

Response (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2369.msg108357.html#msg108357) on new W-8 thread.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 31, 2013, 11:44:37 AM
I certainly don't put it past Gutman to be misleading, but using it like that would be misleading.

Caveat lector.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 31, 2013, 02:10:06 PM
I certainly don't put it past Gutman to be misleading, but using it like that would be misleading.

Considering that his reports are a group effort of him, his producers, and his technical people, and that the network is ultimately responsible for the content, I don't see it as misleading at all.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on March 31, 2013, 04:08:35 PM
Maybe DD was trying to pull a Crump. Figured if she wrote something out she wouldn't have to be "deposed".

In all seriousness, a written statement is something a lawyer or LE would want from her. I think someone was in the room with her just prior to the Crump interview. A lawyer that took (maybe even wrote out themselves) her written statement. The most likely candidates would be someone from Team Crump.

EDIT: Of course I don't know it for certain, but it really does seem someone wanted something in writing. Considering how reluctant she's been to tell the story I doubt it was her idea.

EDIT2: Looking forward to handwriting comparison to others in the room with her that day. Whoever those people were that didn't know how to spell Trayvon's name.
I don't assume it was written at the last minute. I do think it was written when DD was at the house prior to (waiting for) the interview with Crump. Do you really see DD, as reluctant as she evidently was to say anything, deciding on her own to put something in writing? I think someone pressed her for a written statement (or wrote it out for her) just like they had to press her to even come forward.

EDIT: Whoever wrote that out wasn't someone that knew the correct spelling of Trayvon's name. Which I'd think would exclude anyone that knew Trayvon for years like friends or family.

As an aside, there seems to be a notable absence of spelling errors in that letter. Having heard DD speak it's difficult for me to imagine her spelling skills would be much better.

I've seen enough examples of "style shifting" by people who regularly speak AAVE informally to feel confident that speaking style doesn't always dictate writing style, and that use of AAVE doesn't indicate anything about accuracy in spelling.

The note still contains enough "DeeDeeisms" like "He started walking then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man wouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again." to match the way she spoke to BDLR. [BBM]

And the time/space/direction vaguenesses in the BDLR interview are matched here by the way she phrases the opening sentences that implies that "Trevon" encountered "the man" on the way to "the Cornerstore", not on the return trip from the store.

And again, I don't see why someone would have needed to write out this short note for her. Is she illiterate? Handless? Not allowed to hold pointy things after a nasty incident involving a Pentel Wow! and some beeyotch's left eye that got too close to DeeDee's bidness?

Since Team Crump doesn't want speculation like that, I'd think they'd forego any handwritten note that had to be written for her-- especially since it's so easy to ask her for a sample of her handwriting for direct comparison and raise the whole "Why didn't you write this yourself?" point in a way that challenges her credibility.

Also, even though it might be a note she wrote hoping this would get her out of being interviewed-- it certainly doesn't read like a personal note to Sybrina-- I don't think it was written under supervision by a lawyer, much less anyone in LE. Do any of the other handwritten witness statements end with a big "Thank You"?

Not to mention how Team Crump was avoiding allowing anyone in connection with LE-- at least on a sub-federal level-- to have access to DeeDee at this point, before they could launch her as "media evidence".

I do think, however, it's likely that DeeDee had help in formulating what she "heard" before she wrote this first draft of it, and that someone else used the word "complex". In the recently leaked ABC clip, we can hear how easily Crump could change her from "remembering" GZ responding "What are you talking about?" to "What are you doing around here?"
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 31, 2013, 07:52:01 PM
Considering that his reports are a group effort of him, his producers, and his technical people, and that the network is ultimately responsible for the content, I don't see it as misleading at all.

I don't see what the number of people on the ABC crew has to do with anything. It isn't a question of singular versus plural. It's a matter of whether it would be misleading for a reporter to invent a name -- and a distinctive name at that -- for a witness without being clear that's what he's doing. I don't believe I've ever seen anything like that done. When reporters make up their own name for witnesses, they normally make it completely clear. Something like, "She wishes to remain anonymous, but we'll call he 'Jane' for this report." Even the term "identified" instead of "called" suggests the name is something more than the reporters own invention.

Other reporters refer to W8 as "DeeDee" without indicating it was a name plucked out of the air by Gutman.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on March 31, 2013, 08:45:50 PM
Then Trevon turned around and said why are you following me!!

I wonder what Trayvon turning around sounded like. Sort of a whifff? Did it sound anything like grass?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 31, 2013, 08:52:11 PM
I wonder what Trayvon turning around sounded like.

'Slowly I turn, step by step . . .'
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 31, 2013, 09:30:25 PM
I don't see what the number of people on the ABC crew has to do with anything. It isn't a question of singular versus plural. It's a matter of whether it would be misleading for a reporter to invent a name -- and a distinctive name at that -- for a witness without being clear that's what he's doing. I don't believe I've ever seen anything like that done. When reporters make up their own name for witnesses, they normally make it completely clear. Something like, "She wishes to remain anonymous, but we'll call he 'Jane' for this report." Even the term "identified" instead of "called" suggests the name is something more than the reporters own invention.

Other reporters refer to W8 as "DeeDee" without indicating it was a name plucked out of the air by Gutman.

That was the point I was making, he'd be more likely to speak in the plural.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on March 31, 2013, 09:31:51 PM
Evil Chinchilla, if only Ludlum were still around, you could have created his next title:

"The Pentel Incident"


 ;D
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 04:30:03 PM
Other reporters refer to W8 as "DeeDee" without indicating it was a name plucked out of the air by Gutman.

How would they know?

Whether or not W-8 was the source of the pseudonym, it would better serve the purpose of concealing her identity if it were not a nickname she actually used in her life.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on April 01, 2013, 05:33:35 PM
How would they know?

They might know from behind-the-scenes discussions with Crump, but that wasn't my point. My point was they treated the name as if it were some meaningful identification. It it was merely the invention of another reporter, they seem to have been misled into accepting it as something more.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 05:52:06 PM
My point was they treated the name as if it were some meaningful identification. It it was merely the invention of another reporter, they seem to have been misled into accepting it as something more.

Would you link to some of the articles you have in mind?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: RickyJim on April 01, 2013, 06:38:35 PM
Quote
It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining to hard.

Maybe somebody else suggested the word complex to her but I think we can be pretty sure this has a factual basis.  There was no pressure on her to make this up and certainly Colonial Village wasn't mentioned in the media discussion of the case at the time of the letter and interviews.  If you want to take her other statements at face value, Zimmerman first saw Martin at the mail kiosk there and followed him to TRATL.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on April 01, 2013, 07:11:49 PM
Would you link to some of the articles you have in mind?

How about the Soledad O'Brien's CNN interview (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/31/se.01.html) with Crump, where she says to Crump:

Quote
Let's take a look at some of the evidence that we do know. You have talked to a young woman named DeeDee, Trayvon Martin's girlfriend. Has DeeDee spoken to police yet?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on April 01, 2013, 07:16:50 PM
Based on the spacing, I believe it's somewhat likely that in the SAO interview with Tracy Martin on 40/284, W8 is referred to by the name "Dee Dee."
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on April 01, 2013, 07:19:14 PM
Maybe somebody else suggested the word complex to her but I think we can be pretty sure this has a factual basis.  There was no pressure on her to make this up and certainly Colonial Village wasn't mentioned in the media discussion of the case at the time of the letter and interviews.  If you want to take her other statements at face value, Zimmerman first saw Martin at the mail kiosk there and followed him to TRATL.

That's the thing.  Apparently she's got whoever was first watching Trayvon starting out in a vehicle, but you'd think Trayvon would have said something along the lines of "That creepy old white guy that was looking at me in the other neighborhood drove around to the one I'm staying in and he's staring at me again.  I don't know what his deal is."

Has anyone figured out if she's indicated, via call start and dropped or stop times, the total length of time Trayvon reported being watched?

I had gotten the impression that he needed to burn off a lot of time near some mailboxes for things to work and wondered if it being mailboxes in the neighborhood to the west might make that work better, or if maybe he got stared at by a different person in the other neighborhood and didn't make the distinction between them, but now I've gotten hopelessly muddled.

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 07:29:45 PM
Maybe somebody else suggested the word complex to her but I think we can be pretty sure this has a factual basis.  There was no pressure on her to make this up and certainly Colonial Village wasn't mentioned in the media discussion of the case at the time of the letter and interviews.

Good points.

Quote
If you want to take her other statements at face value, Zimmerman first saw Martin at the mail kiosk there and followed him to TRATL.

The Colonial Village mail shade (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/8433463965/in/set-72157632691885798/lightbox/) doesn't look like an inviting shelter, especially compared to the breezeways. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/8433464081/in/set-72157632691885798/lightbox/) More than one of the breezeways are closer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/8480601311/in/set-72157632691885798/lightbox/) to what I would think to be his likely route.

It would be hard for Zimmerman to keep Martin in view from Oregon Ave. Buildings would block the view most of the time, and if there was any traffic he would be blocking it by slowing to a walking pace

If Zimmerman followed Martin inside the complex, he would reach a dead end for vehicles, and need to backtrack. I don't think he left the Ridgeline in Colonial Village and followed on foot from there. I don't see how that can be squared with the NEN call.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on April 01, 2013, 07:34:14 PM
Based on the spacing, I believe it's somewhat likely that in the SAO interview with Tracy Martin on 40/284, W8 is referred to by the name "Dee Dee."



Perhaps it's entirely coincidental that they chose the same fake name that Gutman did, but that seems unlikely.

If it was a fake name, why would it need to be redacted?

A certain professor has opined that Witness 8 "was assigned a fake name (Dee Dee) by the prosecution to protect her privacy."

Maybe it wasn't her "official" fake name until the state got involved.

 ;D

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on April 01, 2013, 07:39:46 PM
...

It would be hard for Zimmerman to keep Martin in view from Oregon Ave. Buildings would block the view most of the time, and if there was any traffic he would be blocking it by slowing to a walking pace

Not to mention that if he couldn't see Trayvon from Oregon Ave., how's Trayvon supposed to notice him watching him, and how does George get away with driving east on Oregon at a walking pace?

If Zimmerman followed Martin inside the complex, he would reach a dead end for vehicles, and need to backtrack. I don't think he left the Ridgeline in Colonial Village and followed on foot from there. I don't see how that can be squared with the NEN call.

He'd have had to go out and take a right onto Oregon and go east and turn into the main gate at TRATL to bring his truck with him to follow the kid coming in via one of the shortcuts.

But I'd think that would make the "watching" really, really blatant, and freak Trayvon a whole lot more, I would think.

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on April 01, 2013, 07:40:17 PM
Maybe somebody else suggested the word complex to her but I think we can be pretty sure this has a factual basis.  There was no pressure on her to make this up and certainly Colonial Village wasn't mentioned in the media discussion of the case at the time of the letter and interviews.  If you want to take her other statements at face value, Zimmerman first saw Martin at the mail kiosk there and followed him to TRATL.

Colonial Village wasn't mentioned in the media, but we know the media got footage of GZ in the police station that wasn't authorized for release (the video that showed him in the police station supposedly showing that he had no injuries).  I think its quite possible it had been released to Crump that GZ says he first spotted TM by Taffe's.  What would be the best story to put forth that would make TM walking by Taffe's house seem benign?

I am not suggesting we know that this was something made up by her with or without someone's prompting.  I do think its seems pretty odd that she would offer very few details in this written "statement" (meaning this detail carried some significance), but she never mentioned this point in the Crump interview, in the media (that I recall) or in BDLR's interview.   In the BDLR interview, she focused on TM telling her it was about to rain and that he was about to get inside a thing, more specifically a mail thing/shed/covered area.  He had run into the gated place to the mail thing to get out of the rain (in the letter, she said it started to rain so he took the shortcut through another complex).  I guess its possible she just forgot about the route through the other complex or was mistaken in the timings of when it rained and how they triggered specific actions by TM, but why mention that specific detail of cutting through another complex because it started raining, but never mention it in the BDLR interview? 

I think its possible (even likely IMO) that the walking through the other complex was part of a early narrative to explain why GZ saw TM by Taffes (information that had been leaked to Crump).   This statement would have provided cover for TM being seen there.  The question with a less obvious answer is, why was walking through a neighboring complex never mentioned again?  Could it be that while this excuse provides cover for TM, it also provides cover for GZ, giving him a legit reason to call NEN?   
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: RickyJim on April 01, 2013, 08:27:09 PM
Colonial Village wasn't mentioned in the media, but we know the media got footage of GZ in the police station that wasn't authorized for release (the video that showed him in the police station supposedly showing that he had no injuries).  I think its quite possible it had been released to Crump that GZ says he first spotted TM by Taffe's.  What would be the best story to put forth that would make TM walking by Taffe's house seem benign?
So maybe I jumped too soon to the conclusion that the other complex story probably wasn't made up.  Tracy might have known that Trayvon liked to take the shortcut through Colonial Village when he went to the mall and fed that information to DeeDee.  Oh, do I wish that GPS data was available.   :(
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on April 01, 2013, 09:09:37 PM
I haven't been keeping up so this may have been mentioned.

It occurs to me the only reason the last line in the letter is redacted is because it's DD's true name. Since it was given to Sybrina prior to the Crump interview doesn't that suggest that Crump had read the unredacted letter? I can't imagine Sybrina not showing it to him. The redaction seems too long to be just a first name. So, first and last name seems likely to me considering it reads more like a written statement than a personal letter. But didn't Crump claim he didn't know DD's surname in his affidavit?

Sure, he can deny he saw the letter but how likely is it Sybrina wouldn't have shown him? I could also be wrong about what's redacted, but what else could it be?

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: RickyJim on April 01, 2013, 09:20:15 PM
So maybe I jumped too soon to the conclusion that the other complex story probably wasn't made up.  Tracy might have known that Trayvon liked to take the shortcut through Colonial Village when he went to the mall and fed that information to DeeDee.  Oh, do I wish that GPS data was available.   :(
A poster on Diwataman's site suggested to me that the front gate videos would show GZ leaving and entering RATL if that is what he did.  That would be a way to check the totality of the Witness 8 story.  Are those videos in discovery?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: DebFrmHell on April 01, 2013, 09:44:57 PM
A poster on Diwataman's site suggested to me that the front gate videos would show GZ leaving and entering RATL if that is what he did.  That would be a way to check the totality of the Witness 8 story.  Are those videos in discovery?

I don't think those cameras at the front gate were working.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 09:55:42 PM
A poster on Diwataman's site suggested to me that the front gate videos would show GZ leaving and entering RATL if that is what he did. 

What do you mean by 'front gate videos', and why does you interlocutor think there were any?

The front gate cameras weren't working. Zimmerman told Singleton they had been down, early in the first interview (5:07). That they weren't working on 2/26/12 is confirmed by an FDLE report, somewhere in the 284 page release.

Audio (http://www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/19101074/article-Video--audio-tell-George-Zimmerman%E2%80%99s-account-of-Trayvon-Martin-shooting-?instance=home_news_right)
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 09:59:56 PM
Sure, he can deny he saw the letter but how likely is it Sybrina wouldn't have shown him?

If Crump wanted to maintain deniability about the last name, he could have told Sybrina he didn't want to see the letter. She could have read the contents to him.

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 10:02:20 PM
It occurs to me the only reason the last line in the letter is redacted is because it's DD's true name.

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.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on April 01, 2013, 10:04:10 PM
If Crump wanted to maintain deniability about the last name, he could have told Sybrina he didn't want to see the letter. She could have read the contents to him.

Why wouldn't he want to know her last name? What's the point of being willfully ignorant of it?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on April 01, 2013, 10:05:43 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.

Yes, but why use a "fake" name unless she didn't want to be identified? In which case why use a nickname that could identify her?

EDIT: Do you mean inclusion of the letter in BDLR's response? The best I can tell is it was included to somehow show her reluctance to be interviewed.

EDIT2: BDLR's introduction of the letter for quick reference:

Quote
Witness 8 didn't want to get involved in this case. Unlike some people involved in this
case, she has never sought out publicity. Quite the opposite is true. Witness 8 reluctantly
agreed to talk only after a review of Trayvon Martin's phone records established she was on the
phone with him. Even though she agreed to talk,she wanted her true identity to remain a secret.
Witness 8 did everything she could to not being identified, including using her nickname so that
she would not be subjected to what is now happening to her. See attached letter Witness 8
gave Victim's mother, Sybrina Fulton, prior to the recorded telephone call with Trayvon Martin's
attorney, Benjamin Crump. (Exhibit B).
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 10:27:07 PM
Why wouldn't he want to know her last name?

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.

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on April 01, 2013, 10:39:13 PM
A poster on Diwataman's site suggested to me that the front gate videos would show GZ leaving and entering RATL if that is what he did.  That would be a way to check the totality of the Witness 8 story.  Are those videos in discovery?

Are you sure they aren't talking about the Colonial Village front gate and videos thereof?

Because I'm sure they know the TRATL front gate cameras weren't working, we've known that since hearing George tell the police that in the recordings of his interviews with them.  Remember him talking about the contact guy for the company responsible and they bring him his phone so he can give them the guy's number?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW 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).
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW 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.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow 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.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow 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?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 11:06:24 PM
But did he suspect she would be a problem

Wouldn't you?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 01, 2013, 11:08:02 PM
I don't recall any videos from Colonial Village being mentioned in discovery.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on April 01, 2013, 11:14:35 PM
Wouldn't you?
Not if I believed she was the real deal.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW 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?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow 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?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow 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?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: who007 on April 02, 2013, 12:16:36 AM
So maybe I jumped too soon to the conclusion that the other complex story probably wasn't made up.  Tracy might have known that Trayvon liked to take the shortcut through Colonial Village when he went to the mall and fed that information to DeeDee.  Oh, do I wish that GPS data was available.   :(
In that 284 page discovery dump, it was noted by Brandy Green's son (page 39) Trayvon had only   been to 7-11 once before.

Brandy Green stated she did not know of Trayvon ever having been to the 7-11 before (page 32).

It was that interview we also learned the night before the dad had been staying at a hotel, and that the weekend of the incident was the first time TM had been there without his father there.  Green said in the past year and a half, TM had been to her residence about 7-8 times, always with the dad.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on April 02, 2013, 12:27:03 AM
In that 284 page discovery dump, it was noted by Brandy Green's son (page 39) Trayvon had only   been to 7-11 once before.

Brandy Green stated she did not know of Trayvon ever having been to the 7-11 before (page 32).

It was that interview we also learned the night before the dad had been staying at a hotel, and that the weekend of the incident was the first time TM had been there without his father there.  Green said in the past year and a half, TM had been to her residence about 7-8 times, always with the dad.

It kind of seems to me that if I were trying to find a quick route to avoid getting rained on, I wouldn't wander into complex if I didn't know my way around. That would apply double if I were on my way back, since I'd have no expectation of finding a direct path from the other community into my own.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 02, 2013, 12:53:47 AM
Has anyone figured out if she's indicated, via call start and dropped or stop times, the total length of time Trayvon reported being watched?

The phone data aren't much help here. Remember that the start time of a call can only be estimated within a minute, and the end time within two minutes.

Dee Dee said Martin was about to start walking from the mail shade just before the connection dropped. That could have been as early as 7:11:01, or as late as 7:12:59, except that we know the next call connected at that time or earlier.

Dee Dee said Martin started running some time after the phones reconnected, which could have been as early as 7:12:00. (By the NEN recording, Martin started running about 7:11:40.)

I think the events Dee Dee described in this interval, their conversations, the dropping and restoring of the phone connections, the hoodie adjustment, could have been accomplished in two minutes or less, but that's a rough guess.

Discussion of related matters, starting here. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2166.msg105573.html#msg105573)
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on April 02, 2013, 01:04:33 AM
De la Rionda implied that was her idea.

He also "implied" a hospital stay, as I recall, and we know how reliable that info was.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 02, 2013, 01:33:40 AM
I think its quite possible it had been released to Crump that GZ says he first spotted TM by Taffe's.

Serino could have mentioned it to Tracy in their 2/28 briefing.

Quote
What would be the best story to put forth that would make TM walking by Taffe's house seem benign?

Wouldn't it be better to say that Trayvon actually used the shortcut? The letter says 'he decided to find a shortcut', then never mentions the shortcut again.

Btw, I think this is the first appearance of the word 'shortcut' in the discovery.

I wouldn't assume that the 'shortcut' that Trayvon 'decided to find' was the same 'shortcut' that has been touted in the media. I wouldn't assume that it was a shortcut from Colonial Village to RATL.

Why would Trayvon need to 'find' the shortcut? If he was taking the shortest route through Colonial Village, the 1460/1510 cut-through would have been right in front of him. Keeping to the route and direction one is already on is not usually described as a 'shortcut', even if it is the shortest way. What is being cut?

To put it another way, Trayvon, in this scenario, would have already taken a 'shortcut' by deciding to go through Colonial Village. After making that decision, he couldn't cut his route to RATL any shorter.

The letter doesn't say when Trayvon passed from 'another complex' to RATL. It would be more consistent with Dee Dee's later statements for that to happen before Trayvon reported being watched or followed.

In the letter, Trayvon wasn't being followed after 'he decided to find a shortcut', then was being followed again, and then came the confrontation. That means that 'he decided to find a shortcut' corresponds to Trayvon running in the later statements. Again, that suggests Trayvon was already inside RATL when 'he decided to find a shortcut'.

The letter doesn't say the shortcut Trayvon 'decided to find' was a shortcut from 'another complex' into RATL. The letter doesn't say what the shortcut would have been from or to, or if Trayvon ever found it, or if it actually existed. It is a mysterious, Twilight Zonish shortcut.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 02, 2013, 02:30:26 AM
He also "implied" a hospital stay, as I recall, and we know how reliable that info was.

I don't recall if de la Rionda commented on that or not.


Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: DebFrmHell on April 02, 2013, 07:03:02 AM
Are you sure they aren't talking about the Colonial Village front gate and videos thereof?

Because I'm sure they know the TRATL front gate cameras weren't working, we've known that since hearing George tell the police that in the recordings of his interviews with them.  Remember him talking about the contact guy for the company responsible and they bring him his phone so he can give them the guy's number?

I am more interested in the Lake's Edge Video.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on April 02, 2013, 07:31:38 AM
Wouldn't it be better to say that Trayvon actually used the shortcut? The letter says 'he decided to find a shortcut', then never mentions the shortcut again.

I take her account of TM finding a short cut and going through a neighboring complex to cover using the shortcut by Taffe's house.  I wouldn't expect her to say TM said he walked by Taffe's house.  If TM had used a cut through from the main street, he likely wouldn't have gone by Taffe's, but the one closer to the street.  To imply that TM was using the shortcut into RATL specifically by Taffe's would be more readily acceptible if TM was cutting through the neighboring complex.  Thats what the letter gives us.  I would think if this letter was written by her, or at least dictated by her, from her recollections, I would think that this point would be something she recalls readily and deems important (this letter was written 3 weeks after the fact).  Its a mystery as to why this detail was only ever mentioned in this letter and I think that makes the inclusion of this detail questionable.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: DebFrmHell on April 02, 2013, 07:38:51 AM
I am more interested in the Lake's Edge Video.
Editing by quoting myself.

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/like-a-shed/

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on April 02, 2013, 07:42:07 AM
I take her account of TM finding a short cut and going through a neighboring complex to cover using the shortcut by Taffe's house.  I wouldn't expect her to say TM said he walked by Taffe's house.  If TM had used a cut through from the main street, he likely wouldn't have gone by Taffe's, but the one closer to the street.  To imply that TM was using the shortcut into RATL specifically by Taffe's would be more readily acceptible if TM was cutting through the neighboring complex.  Thats what the letter gives us.  I would think if this letter was written by her, or at least dictated by her, from her recollections, I would think that this point would be something she recalls readily and deems important (this letter was written 3 weeks after the fact).  Its a mystery as to why this detail was only ever mentioned in this letter and I think that makes the inclusion of this detail questionable.

She gives the "decided to find a shortcut" event after she says Martin apprised her that somebody was watching her.  I think the reference describes Martin going between two of the buildings at RTL (no concrete or other "designated walkway"), an opening that is toward Brandi's house, relative to the Tee location.  By Zimmerman's account, Martin makes an effort to evade observation - either running or skipping away.

I don't think the "decided to find a shortcut" refers to any location outside of RTL.

Separately, and nitpicky, it's hard to find a shortcut in the dark.  Not so hard to take one, if you know roughly where it is, or it's obvious (like cutting diagonal across an open space, like a parking lot).
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on April 02, 2013, 08:27:30 AM
She gives the "decided to find a shortcut" event after she says Martin apprised her that somebody was watching her.  I think the reference describes Martin going between two of the buildings at RTL (no concrete or other "designated walkway"), an opening that is toward Brandi's house, relative to the Tee location.  By Zimmerman's account, Martin makes an effort to evade observation - either running or skipping away.

I don't think the "decided to find a shortcut" refers to any location outside of RTL.

Separately, and nitpicky, it's hard to find a shortcut in the dark.  Not so hard to take one, if you know roughly where it is, or it's obvious (like cutting diagonal across an open space, like a parking lot).

Sorry, I confused the point in my post.  Going through another complex because it started to rain was "finding a short cut", but not the one she referred to later (after he was being watched).  Its my belief that W8 mentions going through another complex to justify why he would have been seen by GZ next to Taffe's house which would have been a short cut to get home from the store.  I think her later use of the words "decided to find a short cut" match the timeline in later accounts of him "about to run from the back" after being followed.  She also mentions "started walking" as an indication that he either stopped running or started moving before being followed.

On another note, I find it interesting that she says "started walking" in reference to a change in TM's  movements.  Might be an indication that "started walking back again" as used in the BDLR interview refers to a change in direction and not simply a change in how fast he was moving in a continuing direction.  The two distinct phrases used by the same person to describe movement seems to be an indication of them having different meanings.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on April 02, 2013, 12:20:00 PM
RJ,

If DD was actually related to Trayvon it would explain a great deal about why people were using a 'nickname' and her name being redacted from the letter.

EDIT to clarify: It wasn't her nickname that was redacted as BDLR seems to suggest. It was her real name as it should be. My primary point is it would explain all the secrecy surrounding her including refusal to give out her address and all the other crap. The defense has to know who DD really is at this point, right?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on April 02, 2013, 01:58:26 PM
The part about what was said after Zimmerman got out of his car is different from the quote from the April 3, 2012 Reuter's article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563).  The Facebook entry seems to be the earliest account appearing in any media.  I suppose though that there is no obvious connection between the cousin and DeeDee.

I am not sure if I get what point you are making (are you talking about Dee Dee's account not matching Tracy's on Apr 3, or Tracy's early account not matching his later one?), but let me point out that in these accounts, Tracy is relaying information that he has heard second and third hand.  We know that there is nothing in GZ's story that has TM saying "Why are you following me?".  What would be great to have would be a recording of exactly what Serino told Tracy.  It could be that Serino told Tracey about the portion of the NEN call establishing that GZ followed TM at some point and Tracy just completely jumbled this into Trayvon asking GZ why he was being followed, putting that question where GZ said TM came up to his vehicle.  Or maybe, Tracy threw in words from W8's account which included "what are you following me for?".  I tend to think Tracy jumbled the two accounts because he does seem to have the gist of TM's words to GZ right before the fight begins, "Whats your problem homes?" and GZ's response, "I don't have a problem".  The fact that he got that later exchange pretty much dead on, tells me that the earlier conversation came from another source. 

IT would be interesting to know when Tracy first uses the question "Why are you following me" when describing the events to anyone.  I do think this March 9 face book post sounds a lot like his rendition from the conversation with Serino, so if the post is real and was made on March 9, where is it most likely Tracy would have heard that TM said "Why are you following me?".  Again, Serino might have mentioned that GZ followed TM (its clear that he did), but I think its pretty unlikely that they said TM asked GZ this question.  Chalk it (what Serino actually told Tracy) up to another one of those things that we'll never know for sure.

FWIW, the first mention I could find of Tracy mentioning TM asking GZ why he was being followed in the press was March 28 and roughly coincided with the release of the police station video.

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: TalkLeft on April 02, 2013, 04:40:09 PM
I have removed Ricky's post quoting a cousin of Travyon Martin on Facebook, and comments in response, that were brought here from another site.  Do not out people here or link to their social media accounts. It is a violation of their privacy if they are not a witness in the case whose identity has been publicly disclosed.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 02, 2013, 07:48:09 PM
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.

As I suggested (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2360.msg108194.html#msg108194) earlier in the thread, I am of the opposite view. I think the letter is a negative for W-8's credibility. That the prosecution thinks so too, is evidenced by their releasing it before Easter weekend, and burying it in a document about another matter.

That suggests that their stated reason for including it is a pretext. People usually like for their pretexts to appear to make some sense. And the only way I can make sense of their stated reason, is if the 'nickname' appears on the letter.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: FromBelow on April 02, 2013, 08:08:07 PM
As I suggested (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2360.msg108194.html#msg108194) earlier in the thread, I am of the opposite view. I think the letter is a negative for W-8's credibility. That the prosecution thinks so too, is evidenced by their releasing it before Easter weekend, and burying it in a document about another matter.

That suggests that their stated reason for including it is a pretext. People usually like for their pretexts to appear to make some sense. And the only way I can make sense of their stated reason, is if the 'nickname' appears on the letter.

Or maybe BDLR just wanted to get ahead of MOM revealing it in a motion by releasing it (mostly for Nelson's eyes, perhaps) with his own 'explanation' and spin.  "We don't want to give the defense stuff because they are in league with racist trolls and encourage doxing." Or some crap like that. It seems like BDLR gets his ideas from internet trolls himself. I've seen all of his arguments and accusations put forward by Trayvon supporters a while back. The Trayvon supporters have also mentioned how they 'send stuff' to BDLR on a number of occasions.

As an aside, I have to wonder to what extent the state still interacts with Trayvon's family and their lawyers. I know the Trayvon supporters very often send things to Natalie Jackson.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 02, 2013, 10:04:52 PM
It kind of seems to me that if I were trying to find a quick route to avoid getting rained on, I wouldn't wander into complex if I didn't know my way around. That would apply double if I were on my way back, since I'd have no expectation of finding a direct path from the other community into my own.

'It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining.'

This is a classic example of an 'explanation' that itself cries out for explanation.

If the other complex was the shortest way, why wouldn't Trayvon have already decided to go that way before he left the store? In her interviews she seems to be saying that Trayvon was expecting the rain when he was at the store or as soon as he left it, although I have to grant that those passages are only partly intelligible.

If she meant that he went through the other complex because it had a good place to shelter from the rain, there is no mention of his using such a shelter in the letter.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on April 03, 2013, 06:53:34 AM
The next sentence after saying he decided to go walk through another complex, she says "he started walking".  This could mean that he was standing around somewhere (at the store?) contemplating which way he was going to go, then once he decided that route, he started walking.  Or, given the brevity and lack of detail in the letter, it could mean that she left out the details of him stopping somewhere for shelter (either in the complex he was cutting through or RATL) and the "started walking" comment is him leaving that shelter.  She follows up the "started walking" comment with noticing someone following him, so I'd put more faith in the idea that TM had started walking after stopping somewhere on the way back home.  Since he left the store roughly around 6:30 and GZ spotted him in RATL around 7:08, I'd say he could have stopped any number of places for any number of reasons (a store, to meet someone, to take shelter).  In this letter, Dee Dee doesn't tell us.

Other than the new detail about choosing to cut through another complex, the most intriguing part about the letter is what it doesn't contain.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on April 03, 2013, 08:51:50 AM
This should have been part of the post above as its a continuing thought, but as I stated above, I think the brevity of the letter and lack of detail makes it intriguing.  IANAL, but I have been a party to a lawsuit.  One of the things my lawyer did was to prepare me for a deposition.  He had me watch this corny 20 minute video then talked to me about how when answering questions from opposing counsel, you wanted to give plain yes or no answers whenever possible and provide as little information as necessary to answer the question.  The reasons behind this are to give the other side as little information as possible to research and to impeach you with at trial. 

I feel this letter was written in just this vein, with the guidance by someone with a legal background telling the author to put in as little as possible, yet enough to fulfill the desired intent.  This is not a letter that W8 would have sat down voluntarily to write to describe the situation as she recalled it.  I am not saying that the letter didn't come from W8 (written by her or dictated to someone else who wrote it) or that they contain statements that were falsified (maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't know).  But I feel confident that the details that got put in the letter and things that were left out was "suggested" by someone with a legal background.

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on April 03, 2013, 10:07:07 AM
As I suggested (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2360.msg108194.html#msg108194) earlier in the thread, I am of the opposite view. I think the letter is a negative for W-8's credibility. That the prosecution thinks so too, is evidenced by their releasing it before Easter weekend, and burying it in a document about another matter.
I'm not sure if it was intentional (I'd have to go back and check dates) or serendipity, but the ruckus over RZJR's "racist" tweets gave them way more smokescreen than releasing the letter just before the Easter weekend.

If you went on Google News the day the letter was released and entered "George Zimmerman" or "Trayvon Martin," you got plenty of hits about the tweets, but almost nothing about the letter where W8 couldn't correctly spell the name of someone she stated under oath that she had known since kindergarten.

Unfortunately, that got buried about as badly as the prosecution admission at the 3/5/13 hearing that W8 lied under oath about her hospital visit and had additionally misrepresented her age to make her a minor.

Instead, what was predominantly getting reported from that hearing was that the defense had waived the immunity hearing.  "The state's star witness has lied under oath" got some coverage in those articles, but not nearly enough headlines.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on April 03, 2013, 10:24:24 AM
'It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining.'

This is a classic example of an 'explanation' that itself cries out for explanation.

If the other complex was the shortest way, why wouldn't Trayvon have already decided to go that way before he left the store? In her interviews she seems to be saying that Trayvon was expecting the rain when he was at the store or as soon as he left it, although I have to grant that those passages are only partly intelligible.
She says "decided to" a couple of other times in that note when she's describing his earliest actions in the narrative-- "Trevon decided to go to the Cornerstore" and "he decided to walk through another complex"-- but later she drops it.

I think it's a DeeDeeism for expressing that "Trevon" communicated his actions to her. If you substitute "told me he was [__ing]" for "decided to [__]," it makes more sense.

I guess if Crump had thought of the importance of these elements at the time the note had been longer, we'd have also gotten "Then Trevon decided to put his hoodie on" and "Then Trevon decided to say 'get off, get off' before the phone hung up."
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 03, 2013, 10:53:39 AM
I'm not sure if it was intentional (I'd have to go back and check dates) or serendipity, but the ruckus over RZJR's "racist" tweets gave them way more smokescreen than releasing the letter just before the Easter weekend.

That's interesting.

I suspect that it's a lucky coincidence for the prosecution, and that the decision on timing the release was made some time in advance.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on April 03, 2013, 06:24:01 PM
She gives the "decided to find a shortcut" event after she says Martin apprised her that somebody was watching her.

The letter never describes the strange man as 'watching'. He is 'following', then he 'didn't follow him again'. Then the stranger reappeared, and 'started getting closer'.

The 4/2 SAO interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) is the most detailed version of the story. In that version, Trayvon first reported the man 'watching him' from a car, as he stood under the mail shade. He said he was about to start walking, and the call dropped. (6:18)

When the phones reconnected, Trayvon told Dee Dee that he was walking, and that 'this man was still following him, behind the car'. Notwithstanding 'still', this is the first time in this narrative that Dee Dee used any variant of 'follow'.

Trayvon put his hoodie on, then told Dee Dee that 'this man is still watching him, like in a car.' To me this suggests that the car stopped while Trayvon was adjusting his hoodie, so that after the hoodie adjustment, the man and the car were no longer following.

It was at this point that Trayvon told Dee Dee that 'he about to run from the back'. Dee Dee suggested, as an alternative, that he 'run to his dad's house'. Trayvon responded that 'from the back' was 'more easier', and he commenced running.

This seems odd to me. If Martin was afraid, wouldn't he just start running, instead of talking it over with Dee Dee? 

I could imagine him getting spooked when the car stopped, thinking the stranger was about to get out and come after him. But he just kept walking, reporting the new situation to Dee Dee and discussing his options.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: vegas on April 03, 2013, 07:21:27 PM
Hard time to imagine a 6 foot male from the mean streets of Miami Gardens being "spooked" by a short, fat guy.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on April 03, 2013, 09:40:18 PM
Someone elsewhere said that it was a given that the letter had to be disclosed.

Once in the hands of the state, perhaps so, but it made me wonder.

Was Sybrina under any obligation to turn it over to anyone, or even disclose the existence of it?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: DebFrmHell on April 04, 2013, 01:43:36 AM
Someone elsewhere said that it was a given that the letter had to be disclosed.

Once in the hands of the state, perhaps so, but it made me wonder.

Was Sybrina under any obligation to turn it over to anyone, or even disclose the existence of it?

Why would you think that Sybrina Fulton didn't turn that letter over to Ben Crump?  It reads like a statement, a written affidavit, than it does a personal note to the mother of her slain friend.

Why do you think that Crump turned it over to the State until he had to?  He very well could have anticipated that W8 would mention it during her deposition.

Besides who has any idea how many generations of that letter was copied and who had read them beforehand.  You can bet the Defense hasn't seen the original.  It took months for them to get the digital copy of that photo of Zimmerman in the back of the patrol car.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on April 04, 2013, 02:26:59 AM
Why would you think that Sybrina Fulton didn't turn that letter over to Ben Crump?  It reads like a statement, a written affidavit, than it does a personal note to the mother of her slain friend.

Why do you think that Crump turned it over to the State until he had to?  He very well could have anticipated that W8 would mention it during her deposition.

Besides who has any idea how many generations of that letter was copied and who had read them beforehand.  You can bet the Defense hasn't seen the original.  It took months for them to get the digital copy of that photo of Zimmerman in the back of the patrol car.

I wasn't talking about what she did with it or did not do with it, I was talking about what she was or was not obligated to do with it, legally speaking.

For instance, she had no legal obligation to even let Crump, or Tracy, know that it existed.

But what about the state?

Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on April 04, 2013, 12:20:04 PM
IANAL, but I would assume the only legal requirement would be based on the states or defenses request.  IF the state asks, do you have any correspondence from W8, Sybrina could simply say yes.  Until someone asks her to produce it, she wouldn't be required to turn it over.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on May 04, 2013, 09:27:14 PM
We learned in the April 30th hearing that the mysterious "letter" was written with the help of a "friend" whose last name W8 didn't know. I assume I can't mention the friend's first name, though it was inadvertently revealed by West.

In his cross-examination of West, BDLR kept hounding him to admit that the defense had no evidence that the prosecutors were aware of the letter prior to learning of it during the depositions at the same time as the defense. West pointed out that BDLR had refused to tell him when he learned of the letter, and during the hearing, BDLR never said that he didn't already know about it before the defense learned of it. I wouldn't be the least surprised to find out BDLR already knew about it.

Part of a Richardson hearing is determining whether any discovery violations were on purpose or inadvertent. I assume that's usually is done by the court or the defense questioning the prosecutors. Perhaps because Judge Nelson determined there was no violation (at least that's what I think she determined), there was no need for any inquiry. Nevertheless, it still seemed like a very one-sided examination.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: unitron on May 06, 2013, 04:31:05 AM
Something cboldt said a month ago over at the Stately Manor that I just now saw got me thinking.

Apparently Bernie said the letter was given to Sybrina.

When Witness 8's existence was discovered the evening of 3/18/12, she was somewhere in the Miami area and so, I'm guessing was Sybrina.

Not sure where Tracy was, but Crump was, I presume, wherever he lives, or at least not in or real near Miami, and so had to interview W8 over the phone.

Could Sybrina have gone to see 8 sometime the next day, the 19th, and gotten the letter and relayed its content to Crump prior to his phone interview?

Or could Sybrina have been told of the letter's existence early the 19th and gone to 8's house to pick it up from 8's mom or somebody while 8 was in school that day?

Perhaps 8 thought that would do, but was contacted later that day and convinced that she needed to let Crump interview her and record it, and maybe she thought that would be the end of it.

But anyway, could Sybrina have gotten the letter early enough to pass some details onto Crump?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on May 06, 2013, 07:04:00 AM
Thats a lot of questions that I'm not sure we have any answers to.   I guess I would come back to who wrote the letter.  W8 says a "friend" whose last name she doesn't know wrote the letter, but did she say she provided the exact verbiage in the letter and the friend just copied it down because she had better hand writing?   Has she provided any contact information so the defense can depose the friend?  Has W8 said when the letter was written (is it different than the date written on the letter)?  It looks to me from the content that it would have been written with someone providing specific direction, maybe not necessarily giving her the words, but maybe after hearing all she had to say, she was directed to write up something hitting on a few specific points.  The letter doesn't read like either of the interviews when she was given free range.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 06, 2013, 07:13:16 AM

Summary of Sybrina Fulton's SAO interview, 4/2/12, 37/284. (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)

Quote
Sometime in March 2012, Fulton talked with [redacted] on the phone after learning she was the last person to talk with the Victim. Fulton talked with [redacted] mother and told the mother that [redacted] needed to talk with the police. [Redacted] mother wanted [redacted] identity kept private. [Redacted] agreed to come to Fulton's apartment. [Redacted] arrive with another unknown black female and may have been dropped off by someone. Fulton and [redacted] went outside to talk. [Redacted] didn't talk about what the Victim had said. She was emotional and said she had gone to the hospital the night of the Victim's viewing. After talking with [redacted] Fulton took her home.

The description of the conversation doesn't make much sense if it happened after the 3/19 interview. Sybrina was with Crump, and would have already heard about the imaginary hospital visit and about 'what the Victim had said'.

Crump indicated that both Sybrina and Tracy spoke to W-8 before the 3/19 interview.

ABC, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iepkwi4nt_E#t=03m49s) 3:49-4:08
Quote
Crump: OK. I'ma, I'ma hold for a second. I just want to ask the part about the [unintelligible], when you say you heard the other person, [unintelligible], you know, like you told Mr. Tracy and Miss Sybrina there, when you say he loud, it was like, "What you doing in here," and stuff, and [crosstalk].

In her deposition, W-8 reportedly said that she lied about the hospital because of Sybrina. To me this suggests that she made up the story for Sybrina, telling it to Sybrina before anyone else. That would also mean that she spoke to Sybrina before the 3/19 interview.

Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Against State Attorney's Office for Discovery Violations, 11/8/12, (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mot_for_sanctions_discovery.pdf) p. 4

I have wondered if the 'unknown black female' was also the 'friend' who assisted with writing the letter. I also wonder if 'outside' of 'Fulton's apartment', there is a patio table where the letter may have been written.

The 3/18 date for the initial contact with W-8 is not confirmed anywhere in the discovery that I am aware of. As far as I know, it is supported only by some public statements of Crump. He has made some other statements about W-8 that have been found inaccurate.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: cboldt on May 06, 2013, 07:54:01 AM
Has she ["friend" of Witness 8] provided any contact information so the defense can depose the friend?  Has W8 said when the letter was written (is it different than the date written on the letter)?

I think West said that defense knows who this person is.  I don't recall if he said this "friend" had been deposed, yet, but if the defense knows who the person is, it's a slam dunk sure bet that the defense either has or will depose her.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: Departure on May 06, 2013, 08:15:15 AM
I think West said that defense knows who this person is.  I don't recall if he said this "friend" had been deposed, yet, but if the defense knows who the person is, it's a slam dunk sure bet that the defense either has or will depose her.

Hopefully they can get a handwriting analysis done on her too to confirm she's the one who wrote the letter.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on May 06, 2013, 06:12:34 PM
Hopefully they can get a handwriting analysis done on her too to confirm she's the one who wrote the letter.
Since "someone else wrote this out for me" is such a convenient cover for why the note has Trayvon's name misspelled twice, and since there's no apparent reason (and none offered) why DeeDee would need help with this note, and since DeeDee claims she doesn't know this "friend's" last name-- even though she knows her well enough to get her involved in all of this-- I hope the "friend's" handwriting will be analysed, in addition to a deposition of her.

I wonder: was the no-last-name "friend" supposedly a friend of Trayvon's as well? And could she have been 16 years old at the time?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 07, 2013, 05:48:00 AM
Since "someone else wrote this out for me" is such a convenient cover for why the note has Trayvon's name misspelled twice

Did W-8 say it was the friend who physically wrote the note?
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on May 07, 2013, 01:42:05 PM
Did W-8 say it was the friend who physically wrote the note?

The only thing we, the public, have heard is that the friend "assisted." However, if you want to place a bet, I'll be more than happy to take the friend-physically-wrote-it side.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: leftwig on May 07, 2013, 02:29:23 PM
The only thing we, the public, have heard is that the friend "assisted." However, if you want to place a bet, I'll be more than happy to take the friend-physically-wrote-it side.

Thanks for clarifying.  When I read the statements, I immediately made the assumption that it was the friend that physically wrote out the letter.  Maybe I just put it with the fact that Trayvon's name was misspelled that led me to believe it was someone else who wrote it up.  Looking at the actual statement, I guess there is wiggle room, but I'd take a bet  that someone other than W8 physically wrote the letter.

One thing that is odd about the letter is that all the words are written in cursive except for the date at the top.  The writing appears to be of  similar structure on the date so I don't necessarily believe it was written on there by a different person, but it just seems odd that its the only printed word on the page.
Title: Re: Witness 8 Letter Dated 3/19/12
Post by: MJW on May 07, 2013, 02:50:30 PM
One thing that is odd about the letter is that all the words are written in cursive except for the date at the top.  The writing appears to be of  similar structure on the date so I don't necessarily believe it was written on there by a different person, but it just seems odd that its the only printed word on the page.

Like maybe it was added later?