17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #35

[BiancaS]

Actually....No, I did not sleuth her. I came across a blog that examined in detail what she was doing during certain key events, and how certain things (actually a lot of things) do not add up. It has nothing do do with her as a person, nothing bad against her, no "dirt", just timeline types of things. <modsnip>

All I see are a lot of racist comments, which is why we don't use blogs as sources of information. One even said that Trayvon never went to 7-11, that Skittles and Tea are names for Ecstasy and something else. Funny, the items were found on him and there is video from the 7-11.

Now we know why her parents are concerned about her identity, the wackos of the world come out instantly. IMHO, etc. etc.

 

[rossva]

Well, I guess for MOM's sake it's a good thing the Judge's opinion is the only one that counts.

The Judge maybe satisfied but I doubt Trayvon's gf is. The Judge isn't taking the brunt of the slip is he?

I don't believe for one second it was a slip anyway!

 

[KateNY]

I saw that blog..

What ppl and especially teens post on social media, sometimes bears no reality to what's actually going on in their lives

as for the 'timeline', & how verifiable, assume the State has certainly seen all that too, and would have checked it out

Noone knows if it is really legit, TBD

 

[beach]

If he is the lawyer with the great track record and ethics that I keep reading about in the news and hearing on the television, letting something just slip might tell me he is being given too much credit for his professionalism. You can't put the tooth paste back in the tube no matter how many apologies to the court he made. He named not only a witness, but a 15 year old minor witness. NO slip. Intentional in my opinion. Because what happened? It took off over the internet. :nono: Sly like a fox he is.

I, along with thousands, have known her name for over a month...it was all over the Internet after Crump's appearance on ABC. Many people here have never heard it because, and with good reason, minors are not to be sleuthed.

JMO

That doesn't give the lawyer who is trying to shield witnesses by not releasing their names license to name one person and then say oopsie I'm sorry.

And so what that other sites are releasing the name of this minor and some people know it. Shame on them for not giving a minor the protection under the law. Even MSM shields minor personal information. Just because it was done doesn't make it ethical.

George Zimmerman doesn't look any better because some try to make the witnesses look worse. George Zimmerman cannot be rehabilitated by tearing down witnesses. And he has no one to blame but himself and his 9mm handgun. He chose to pull that trigger. And his stories do not add up as to how he got to that point of making the decision.

Per the BBM in your first post quoted here, you insinuated that O'Mara started the whole snowball effect by mentioning her name in open court - in your own words, "Because what happened? It took off all over the internet. Sly like a fox he is."

The FACT IS - it was ALREADY all over the internet long, long, LONG before that hearing.

Just because WS does not permit it here, you knew, I knew it, most everyone knew it was out there. Whether they sleuthed her or not, is a whole other issue. I personally have not.

I am tired of this sort of rhetoric, misinformation and character assassination of Mark O'Mara. Mark O'Mara's mentioning of her name at that hearing is NOT what got the ball rolling here as far as her identity being disclosed. It was already out there. I personally don't believe he did it on purpose. I respect that others do.

 

[Velouria]

I agree with you. Although we'll be attacked here for stating our opinion, I think it took a tremendous amount of courage to get up in front of the court, TMs Parents, the SA, and the entire world watching and say what he had to say.

Okay, give me a minute to get my flamesuit on before everyone tells me how awful it was for him to tell the family that he was sorry for their loss.

Not sure why you think you'd be attacked for stating that. :waitasec: Granted, I'll gladly let you know I don't happen to agree with you, but then I haven't seen many threads here where everyone seems to share the same opinion. Dissenting voices are to be expected.

 

[JSV]

I don't believe it was a slip, I think he is professional enough to make just the mistakes he planned to. It's not a coincidence that the one witness he failed to protect was the one who appears to be the most damaging to his client's case IMO.

I agree with you 100%

 

[Emeralgem]

Well, in reality IMO, those tactics are used on both sides of the fence. It goes with the territory. It is not always ethical of course but still legal. High moral ethics do not win cases IMO. Clever manipulation and brainwashing on a grand scale does.

Perhaps that describes alot of what is wrong with our judicial system as well as our society..JMHO

 

[Donjeta]

Well, I guess for MOM's sake it's a good thing the Judge's opinion is the only one that counts.

It was totally safe for him to sic the hordes on her. What is the judge going to do? How is the judge going to prove that it wasn't a slip, it was completely on purpose? He is not.

 

[BiancaS]

The "death threats" and Black Panthers bounty were not until weeks after the shooting. It has been reported that GZ moved and went into hiding immediately (like the very next day) after the shooting. Only limited local media attention had been paid to the case at that time, so why did GZ go into hiding so fast?

Just a guess, but I would say he wanted to hide so no one saw the lack of injuries. Can only hide under fake bandages for so long. MOO.

 

[cityslick]

I'm not interested in the girl's background, etc. I am interested in her story, what exactly was said on the phone call, what she heard, context, etc.

I hope her story is airtight because she will be subjected to a defense deposition I would think, plus on the stand as well and if there are any holes there, it will be exploited.

 

[JSV]

If he is the lawyer with the great track record and ethics that I keep reading about in the news and hearing on the television, letting something just slip might tell me he is being given too much credit for his professionalism. You can't put the tooth paste back in the tube no matter how many apologies to the court he made. He named not only a witness, but a 15 year old minor witness. NO slip. Intentional in my opinion. Because what happened? It took off over the internet. :nono: Sly like a fox he is.

I agree with you 100%

 

[katydid23]

I saw that blog..

What ppl and especially teens post on social media, sometimes bears no reality to what's actually going on in their lives

as for the 'timeline', & how verifiable, assume the State has certainly seen all that too, and would have checked it out

Noone knows if it is really legit, TBD

I guess we will have to wait and see. But if those are her tweets, then Crump was lying about several key things in his press conference. So I am really curious about this. Those tweets are REAL tweets,imo, so the only question is, are those from the same person who Crump is saying was on the phone that night. Sure looks like the same person to me, and I would imagine if it were somebody else, they would have come forward already.

 

[MaryAnn]

Well, I guess for MOM's sake it's a good thing the Judge's opinion is the only one that counts.

not in the world of public opinion and in my opinion I think it was wrong!

 

[Elley Mae]

Per the BBM in your first post quoted here, you insinuated that O'Mara started the whole snowball effect by mentioning her name in open court - in your own words, "Because what happened? It took off all over the internet. Sly like a fox he is."

The FACT IS - it was ALREADY all over the internet long, long, LONG before that hearing.

Just because WS does not permit it here, you knew, I knew it, most everyone knew it was out there. Whether they sleuthed her or not, is a whole other issue. I personally have not.

I am tired of this sort of rhetoric, misinformation and character assassination of Mark O'Mara. Mark O'Mara's mentioning of her name at that hearing is NOT what got the ball rolling here as far as her identity being disclosed. It was already out there. I personally don't believe he did it on purpose. I respect that others do.

The constant repeating of wrong information here is bothersome to say the least. jmo no links available, sorry:blushing:

 

[cityslick]

The fact of the matter is if it was the prosecutor that made the slip up, he would be given the benefit of the doubt on here, but because MOM has the title of 'defense lawyer', no such benefit of the doubt is given.

 

[Emma Peel]

A self serving condolences which inflicts further pain on the family does not make a person courageous. But rather shows the true test of a person's social and moral failings. MOO

Awwww, heck, gmaw-j. I guess I was outraged a long while back. IMO, GZ already showed us his social & moral failings with that outrageous website of his.

IMO, that website was far more offensive than the apology b/c it ignored what happened to TM and it ignored the suffering of TM's family.

Yes, the apology at the bond hearing was self-serving. BUT, apologies are in order. Remorse is in order. Humility is in order. Apologies, remorse, and humility were ALL in order immediately. Long before the bonding hearing. :rocker:

MOM may have believed his client was damned if he did/ damned if he didn't on that one - so he erred on the side of letting GZ express what he did. GZ did not have MOM advising him initially - when that apology would have been more timely. We don't know if he was advised to keep mum by his former "attnys". :moo:

Man, this is a tough crowd here today. LOL. And it will continue to be, as it should be. I do love everyone's spirit here @ WS. :heart:

 

[grandmaj]

Per the BBM in your first post quoted here, you insinuated that O'Mara started the whole snowball effect by mentioning her name in open court - in your own words, "Because what happened?

The FACT IS - it was ALREADY all over the internet long, long, LONG before that hearing.

Just because WS does not permit it here, you knew, I knew it, most everyone knew it was out there. Whether they sleuthed her or not, is a whole other issue. I personally have not.

I am tired of this sort of rhetoric, misinformation and character assassination of Mark O'Mara. Mark O'Mara's mentioning of her name at that hearing is NOT what got the ball rolling here as far as her identity being disclosed. It was already out there. I personally don't believe he did it on purpose. I respect that others do.

I don't consider it rhetoric, And I"m sorry you disagree. Remove the blogs, remove even MSM. They don't matter. They are ethically wrong to disclose a minor's name and it doesn't matter that the WEB has that information. I expect more from a defense counsel who knows the law.

In a court of law Mark O'Mara said the name of a witness. While later in the hearing because of the Sunshine Act, he told the Judge he wanted the names of the witnesses sealed. The State stood up in a court of law and said that they had the discovery but were asked by Mark O'Mara not to give it to them so that they could work on an agreement to protect the witnesses. The Judge said work it out.

My personal belief is that is was no accident. And I'm sorry if others need to dismiss my opinion and that of others here as rhetoric, in an effort to dismiss the validity of the argument.

It is what happened, and my opinion is as valid as those that said it was a oopsie moment. How would anyone know that. One opinion is no more rhetoric that the other. It took off all over the internet. Sly like a fox he is." And, as a result it did increase the ferocity of the posting on the internet about this girl IMO including misleading records that surfaced that were phone records in Pacific Timezone.

 

[Elley Mae]

I'm not interested in the girl's background, etc. I am interested in her story, what exactly was said on the phone call, what she heard, context, etc.

I hope her story is airtight because she will be subjected to a defense deposition I would think, plus on the stand as well and if there are any holes there, it will be exploited.

bbm, Do we even know that the "phone bill" that came out was for real. If it did get to her testifying would she be allowed to testify to what TM or GZ said. Isn't that hearsay? :waitasec:

 

[Dr.Fessel]

The girlfriends testimony is only a small part of the case and might not ever get in. What is going to sink Zimmerman is his own testimony. His story does not add up with the evidence. No matter what they say or do he lied about what happened that night and the SA can prove it. IMO

 

[cityslick]

I don't consider it rhetoric, And I"m sorry you disagree. Remove the blogs, remove even MSM. They don't matter. They are ethically wrong to disclose a minor's name and it doesn't matter that the WEB has that information. I expect more from a defense counsel who knows the law.

In a court of law Mark O'Mara said the name of a witness. While later in the hearing because of the Sunshine Act, he told the Judge he wanted the names of the witnesses sealed. The State stood up in a court of law and said that they had the discovery but were asked by Mark O'Mara not to give it to them so that they could work on an agreement to protect the witnesses. The Judge said work it out.

My personal belief is that is was no accident. And I'm sorry if others need to dismiss my opinion and that of others here as rhetoric, in an effort to dismiss the validity of the argument.

It is what happened, and my opinion is as valid as those that said it was a oopsie moment. How would anyone know that. One opinion is no more rhetoric that the other.

He apologized for it, what else is there to do? Are you telling me that a lawyer, no matter what side they are on, has never slipped on something that was supposed to be redacted in court? And is a slip up never a truly a slip up, but intentional?

I mean, we are holding MOM to a pretty high standard to never make any mistakes or miscues in the courtroom. Can the say be said for the prosecution?