Zimmerman: Let there be thunder that makes the mountains tremble

May 4, 2013

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Good afternoon:

The defendant’s friend, Frank Taaffe, described the defendant’s state of mind the night that he stalked and killed Trayvon Martin.

He was mad as hell and he wasn’t going to take it anymore.

Given that Taaffe uttered this statement after he found out about the shooting, I believe we can reasonably assume that he believed the defendant pursued and confronted Trayvon with murder in mind.

Why did he believe that?

Why was the defendant so angry?

What was it that the defendant was not going to take anymore?

I have puzzled over Taaffe’s statement ever since I heard him say it.

Despite a lack of objective evidence that would support a belief that the gated neighborhood was besieged by burglars and thieves, the defendant appears to have believed that was actually happening, or he pushed that false narrative in hopes of creating a justification for the Homeowner’s Association to hire him to provide security.

He also appears to have believed that the burglars and thieves were Black and they always got away.

Frank Taaffe told us that the defendant was mad as hell about that and he was going to put an end to it.

The defendant said during the NEN call, “fucking coons,” and “these assholes, they always get away.”

This explains why he got out of his vehicle and hunted for Trayvon, ignoring the dispatcher’s request not to follow him.

Indeed, we can see by his actions that he was “mad as hell.” Acting as police officer, prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner the defendant decided that Trayvon was one “fucking coon,” one “asshole” who wasn’t going to get away.

A little over two minutes after the defendant ended the NEN call, after telling the dispatcher to have the officer call his cell phone when he arrived in the neighborhood, he hunted Trayvon down and shot him to death as Trayvon was telling Dee Dee about the creepy man who stalked and frightened him.

Trayvon never found out who he was or why he stalked and attacked him.

He died in the dark and cold rain begging for his life and shrieking in terror and disbelief.

Although Trayvon was a good kid, it would not have mattered if he were the Devil incarnate.

He was unarmed and he did nothing except try to escape from a creepy man who stalked him, first in a vehicle and then on foot.

The defense effort to demonize him and his family disgusts and infuriates me.

Demonizing Trayvon, even if successful, is not a defense and evidence of bad acts or character, assuming such evidence exists, is not admissible.

Defense counsel deserve harsh criticism and universal condemnation for pursuing this incredibly depraved and unnecessary course of action.

By attempting to exploit racial stereotypes and race-driven fear of Black males in a high publicity case, Mark O’Mara, Don West and everyone who supports what they do give us all a bad name.

Let there be thunder across this land that makes the mountains tremble,

Justice for Trayvon

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred


Using motions to disclose information in depositions is a sleazy tactic

April 3, 2013

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Good morning.

I believe that we have completed our analysis and discussion regarding whether the use of doxing and breitbarting to intimidate and assassinate a person’s character constitutes witness intimidation, if used to discredit and intimidate a witness in a murder case.

The clear answer is “Yes.”

Moreover, I believe the two efforts by the defendant’s supporters to discredit and intimidate Dee Dee, which successively targeted two innocent girls named Dee Dee, constituted at the very least criminal attempts to intimidate a witness.

Since the perpetrators proudly declared their intent to intimidate the real Dee Dee when they mistakenly went after the wrong Dee Dees, and there is no doubt that the real Dee Dee found out about and was intimidated by those efforts, which were reported by the media, I believe the perpetrators already have committed at least two completed offenses of witness tampering.

I say “at least two,” because each lie, misrepresentation or threat is a completed crime. For example, 10 lies, misrepresentations or threats targeted against one witness constitutes 10 separate crimes or counts of witness intimidation.

Needless to say that the people who have committed these crimes are in deep trouble, even if they only get charged with attempted witness intimidation.

Are they stupid enough to continue their search for the right Dee Dee?

Only time will tell.

They have failed to demonstrate even a scintilla of intelligence, so I recommend against betting the ranch that they will stop.

By endorsing the CTH as a legitimate website and source of helpful information and ideas to use in defending GZ, Mark O’Mara has only himself to blame if the public associates him with the unlawful efforts to intimidate Dee Dee.

* * * *

Now, I want to take a look at O’Mara’s use of motions to disclose information that should not be disclosed.

Xena raised this issue yesterday when she asked me if depositions are supposed to be released to the public.

I replied that the answer is “No.”

She responded,

Thank you. O’Mara did manage to get in parts of one — IIRC, Santiago, that he included as an Exhibit with a Motion.

I believe O’Mara has been deliberately publicizing information, which he knows should not be publicized, by appending it to a marginally appropriate motion that he creates to serve as a vehicle to publicize the information in a manner that provides him with plausible deniability.

In other words, he has not been filing these motions in good faith.

He then incorporates the publicized information into his propaganda campaign to win the case in the court of public opinion.

For example, despite knowing that a police officer’s opinion regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence is inadmissible at trial, he publicized Santiago’s deposition to support his propaganda claim that the Sanford Police Department believed the defendant killed Trayvon in self-defense.

Fortunately, BDLR quickly shut him down in court when he handed him Serino’s three or four drafts of the Capias request in which Serino considered charging the defendant with murder or manslaughter and ultimately settled on manslaughter.

I think it’s pretty clear that O’Mara was attempting to create and exploit a difference of opinion regarding the defendant’s innocence between the local SA and hometown police department versus the Jacksonville SA and the FDLE. I think he hoped to hijack and derail the jury inquiry into an are-you-going-to-trust-and-believe-your-hometown-law-enforcement-officials or the outsiders that the governor was forced to select for political reasons unrelated to what actually happened.

Notice that despite not mentioning race, that particular strategy is all about exploiting racism. The argument is little more than a transparent dress concealing a bloated and maggot infested corpse.

This is a good example of what lawyers mean when they refer to “playing the race card.”

I have to admit that I am fantasizing that there will come a day when O’Mara schedules a press conference and no one shows up.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated


Proposal to protect Dee Dee from witness intimidation

April 1, 2013

Monday, April 1,2013

I write today to provide additional context regarding when the prosecution must turn over Brady material to the defense in federal court. This article supplements The Prosecution did not violate the Brady rule in Zimmerman case.

Discovery in federal criminal cases is controlled by the Jencks Act (18 USC 3100 et. seq.), which was passed by Congress in the early 1930s in order to protect the lives and safety of prosecution witnesses in cases against members of criminal organizations (i.e., mob prosecutions). Pursuant to the Jencks Act, federal prosecutors do not have to disclose the identity of a witness to the defense until the witness takes the stand. They do not have to disclose witness statements until after the witness testifies on direct examination. To prevent recessing a trial after the direct examination of each witness to allow defense counsel an opportunity to read the statements before commencing cross examination, federal prosecutors in most districts provide a list of their witnesses and all of their statements and reports late Friday afternoon before the trial starts on the following Monday.

The only discovery that a defendant has a right to obtain before the Jencks material is delivered on Friday afternoon, is his statements, search warrants, affidavits for search warrants, and an inventory of all of his property seized by federal agents executing those searches.

The Brady rule applies in federal criminal cases just as it does in state criminal cases.

As I stated in my Saturday post, regardless of when the defense requests Brady material in a state case, there is no violation of the Brady rule so long as the defense receives the defendant’s Brady material before the trial starts. The same is true in federal court.

I hope this brief description of discovery practices in federal court that do not violate the Brady rule sheds additional light on the defendant’s frivolous claim that Bernie de la Rionda violated the Brady rule by waiting until the night before a pretrial hearing to inform the defense that no hospital records supported Dee Dee’s claim that she missed the funeral and wake because she was in the hospital.

If I were the judge handling this case, I would enter an order dismissing the two defense motions because they are frivolous and I would assess terms against O’Mara for wasting the court’s time.

I had another reason for mentioning the Jencks Act in this post. Since I am concerned about protecting Dee Dee from willful, intentional and malicious doxing and character assassination by people who pride themselves in breitbarting those who seek justice for Trayvon, I think Bernie de la Rionda might want to consider seeking the court’s permission to wait until the trial starts before it discloses information that identifies Dee Dee and any other witness for whom there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be subjected to the same intimidating criminal acts.


The Prosecution did not violate the Brady rule in Zimmerman case

March 30, 2013

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Good morning everyone.

I realized at approximately 3:30 am this morning that I forgot to mention several extremely important points in the articles and comments that I have posted recently about the Brady rule and the timing of the exculpatory evidence disclosures to the defense.

The Brady rule imposes an obligation on the lead prosecutor and case agent in each case to periodically review the case file for the specific purpose of identifying exculpatory evidence. Since police investigations typically continue until a final order terminates a case after verdict and sentencing, a case file will continue to grow documenting the investigation and the discovery of new information. Prosecutors also add their stuff to the file. This feature of the criminal justice system frustrates judicial efforts to establish a uniform drop-dead deadline by which the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in any given case.

Therefore, the general practice is to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense as soon as practicable after it has been obtained and identified. One might reasonably expect to see multiple disclosures of exculpatory evidence prior to trial and even during trial.

A major exception to this practice was developed to deal with unusual or exceptional circumstances that warrant delaying the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense until the defense must have it to prepare for a deposition, pretrial hearing or the trial.

We have that situation in this case due to the well documented need to protect the privacy and safety of W8 (Dee Dee) from harassment and intimidation by the defendant’s supporters.

The vast majority of Brady violations involve situations where the prosecution had exculpatory evidence, but never disclosed it to the defense. In most cases a new team of defense investigators independently discovers the exculpatory evidence several years later during the run-up to filing a state or federal habeas petition after the judgment and sentence of the trial court was affirmed by appellate courts.

Tthe Brady rule requires a showing that the exculpatory evidence withheld from the defense was so important that the outcome of the trial likely would have been different, if the prosecution had disclosed it to the defense before trial. In other words, absent a showing of materiality, the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence in any given case will be deemed harmless error.

Finally, the importance or materiality of that exculpatory evidence relative to rest of the evidence admitted at trial cannot be determined until after the trial has concluded.

For this reason alone, the defense claim that the prosecution violated the Brady rule should be summarily dismissed as premature, impossible to determine, and frivolous.

Nevertheless, let us briefly review the available facts to see if the timing of the prosecution disclosure disadvantaged or prejudiced the defense.

There is no evidence that it did.

ASA John Guy contacted MOM the evening before the court hearing in early March and told him that there were no hospital records to confirm Dee Dee’s statement that she did not attend the funeral and the wake because she was in the hospital.

Because of that disclosure, the judge ruled that the defense motion for a subpoena duces tecum of Dee Dee’s hospital records was moot.

The defense deposition of Dee Dee a week later could not have been adversely affected by the timing of the disclosure because the defense had the information for a week and used it to question Dee Dee.

The trial is still three months down the road, so I do not see any possibility of prejudice to the defense from the timing of the disclosure.

In conclusion, I do not see any prejudice to the defense caused by the delay between the defense request for the hospitalization records last fall and the recent disclosure.

As I have already mentioned, the prosecution has legitimate reality-based concerns to protect the privacy and safety of Dee Dee. I refer of course to the concerted effort by the defendant’s supporters to successively intimidate two girls whom they mistakenly believed to be the real Dee Dee.

Therefore, the delay in disclosing the evidence requested by the defense not only failed to harm the defense, it was reasonable and necessary to protect Dee Dee.

For all of these reasons, the defense motion is frivolous and should be denied.

Finally, the responses by the two reporters for the Orlando Sentinel and the national media to BDLR’s response to the defendant’s frivolous motions demonstrated that they have not yet grasped the facts in this case and the simple truth that the defendant has no defense.

Pathetic fail.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated


Featuring: LLMPapa’s video: Dee Dee’s story

March 26, 2013

Here’s LLMPapa again:

Several months ago, I removed the questioning and interaction of Bernie de la Rionda from the audio of DeeDee’s statement in order to hear her story in a narrative format. The following is her story of the last few moments of her childhood friend’s life.

In June of this year, when called, I believe this young girl will rise and stand tall with a strength of purpose and resolve born of the knowledge that her story needs to be heard.

Listen to her words and answer, for yourself, the question I’ve raised at the end.

Personally, I don’t think there’ll be a dry eye in the house.

I plan on being there.

I’ll let you know.


Trayvon Martin: The prosecution is not crumbling

March 26, 2013

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Now that W8 (Dee Dee) has apparently admitted during the defense deposition on March 13th that she lied when she told Benjamin Crump during a telephone interview and later confirmed to BDLR that she did not go to Trayvon Martin’s funeral because she was sick and went to a hospital, the inevitable question is:

How might this affect the trial?

First, do not expect to see her charged with perjury because BDLR’s question was ambiguous (i.e., went to a hospital or someplace) and her answer was not material (i.e., important enough to affect the outcome of the trial).

Second, let’s take a look at how this admission might come out at trial.

BDLR would ask her if she attended the wake or the funeral and she would answer, “No.”

BDLR would then ask her why not and she probably would answer that she was too upset and could not handle it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution either did not move in limine (i.e., before the trial begins) to prohibit the defense from pursuing this line of inquiry pursuant to Rule 608(b) or if it did, Judge Nelson denied the motion, BDLR would have the option to end that line of inquiry (i.e., permitting the defense to bring it out on cross) or to proceed further and reveal her lie).

Any experienced prosecutor, and BDLR is experienced, would elect to reveal her lie in the least damaging manner possible rather than allow the defense to bring it out on cross in the most damaging manner possible.

This is how it might work:

BDLR: Do you recall Benjamin Crump interviewing you by phone in March of last year regarding your cell phone conversations with Trayvon before the shooting?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Do you recall him asking you, if you went to Trayvon’s wake and funeral?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: What, if anything did you tell him?

DD: I told him that I did not go to either one.

BDLR: Was that truth?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Did he ask why you did not go the funeral and the wake?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: What did you tell him?

DD: I told him I was sick and went to the hospital.

BDLR: Was that the truth?

DD: No.

BDLR: What was the truth?

DD: I was too upset and could not handle it.

BDLR: Why didn’t you tell him that?

DD: I did not want to admit to his mother that I was not strong enough to be there for her.

BDLR: Are you referring to Sybrina Fulton?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Was Trayvon’s mother present when Mr. Crump interviewed you?

DD: Yes, she was in Mr. Crump’s office listening over the speaker phone.

BDLR: How did you know that?

DD: Mr. Crump introduced her and she said, “Hello.”

BDLR: Did there come a later time when I interviewed you in person?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Do you recall when that was?

DD: I think it was about a month later.

BDLR: Was Trayvon’s mother present when I interviewed you?

DD: Yes, she gave me a ride to the office where you interviewed me and she sat next to me the whole time.

BDLR: Did you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth during the interview?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Did I ask you if you went to the funeral and the wake?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: What did you say?

DD: I lied and told you that my blood pressure was very high and I went to the hospital instead.

BDLR: Do you suffer from high blood pressure?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Why did you lie to me?

DD: I did not want to admit to Trayvon’s mother that I could not deal with what happened to Trayvon. I could not handle seeing him dead or in a casket, so I lied to her and to Mr. Crump.

BDLR: Are you sorry that you lied?

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Have you apologized to Trayvon’s mom and dad.

DD: Yes.

BDLR: Did you love Trayvon?

DD: Yes, I still do.

BDLR: Do you miss him?

DD: Yes, very much.

BDLR: Thank you. Your witness, counsel.

Picture this scene taking place before a jury in a crowded courtroom in June with a nation and the world looking on, after the prosecution has introduced all of its damning evidence against the defendant, including the medical examiner’s testimony using graphic color photos taken during the autopsy, as this young woman confesses her love and affection for Trayvon while baring her soul and tearfully confessing to her overwhelming sense of loss, responsibility, confusion, weakness and guilt.

If BDLR conducts the direct examination properly, as I believe he will, the best cross will be no cross. The jury will not take kindly to a defense attorney picking on her and prolonging her agony.

Finally, do not forget that the phone records and the other evidence in the case will independently confirm everything else she says about her conversation with Trayvon.

One understandable simple lie by Dee Dee is relatively unimportant compared to the vast ocean of lies uttered by the defendant in this case.

Is the prosecution crumbling? I don’t think so.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated


Defense files pretty glittering balloon to keep hope alive in Zimmerman case

March 26, 2013

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The defense filed a specious motion yesterday afternoon in the Zimmerman case seeking a sternly worded judicial rebuke of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, imposition of terms (i.e., a fine), and attorney’s fees.

This is yet another whining complaint about W8’s (Dee Dee) statement that she did not attend Trayvon Martin’s funeral because she was not feeling well and went to the hospital.

I think it is an attempt to distract the public’s attention from the defense decision several weeks ago to forego an immunity hearing, thereby implicitly admitting that it has no defense. Instead, by resorting to the well known propaganda technique of repetition while aided and abetted by a compliant media ever so eager to repeat anything they say, regardless of merit in the self-interest of securing higher ratings and increased profits by providing so-called “balanced” coverage that promotes the illusion of a legitimate defense, the defense seeks to link the words “liar” and “perjurer” with Dee Dee so that the public, and hopefully the jury, will already have decided to disregard her testimony.

Watch the pretty glittering balloon and for God’s sake don’t you dare look at my hands.

In this latest iteration of the Dee-Dee-is-a-liar mantra, the defense asserts that she admitted during her deposition on March 13th that she lied about going to the hospital when Benjamin Crump interviewed her last March and later to Bernie de la Rionda because Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, was present.

The defense claims that this revelation constitutes exculpatory evidence that the prosecution knew about and should have disclosed to the defense months ago. Of course, the defense would have known this information months ago, if it had bothered to depose Dee Dee, so the defense claim is specious.

As I have previously pointed out, Dee Dee’s admission that she lied about going to the hospital is not material, so it cannot be the basis of a perjury charge as it does not make it more or less likely that the defendant acted in self-defense when he killed Trayvon Martin. It’s what lawyers and judges call impeachment on a collateral matter.

I am certain Mark O’Mara and Don West know this and I believe it’s unfortunate that they have repackaged their war against Dee Dee as unethical prosecutorial misconduct.

When Judge Nelson inevitably denies the defense motion, can we expect the defense to follow-up with a motion to recuse herself from the case?

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated


%d bloggers like this: