Posted on 03/29/2013 7:58:43 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
From Bernie De La Rionda's States Response to Defense Motion for Sanctions against State Attorney's Office:
"See attached letter [Exhibit B] Witness 8 gave Victim's mother, Sybrina Fulton, prior to the recorded call with Trayvon Martin's attorney, Benjamin Crump."
[This is the transcription of Exhibit B which is a scribbled note dated March 19 supposedly handwritten and given to Sybrina Fulton on that day by DeeDee1:]
"I was on the phone when Trevon decided to go to the Cornerstore. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining to hard. 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. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon turned around and said why are you following me!! Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back and text. No response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story.
Thank You, Name Redacted"
(Excerpt) Read more at diwataman.wordpress.com ...
“My impression is that he includes it to show (the redacted part) that the Witness was so reluctant that she did not associate her own name with the handwritten list of bullet points.”
Not sure I follow you. The “note” as posted has a blacked-out block I presumed was a signature redacted to prevent public disclosure of Witness 8’s name. Are you saying she signed some other name to it?
Another thing I find odd: why would W8 close a note like this with “Thank You”? What is W8 thanking Sybrina Fulton for, when W8 is doing the “giving”?
That could be on the back, or maybe nobody had Bates stickers with them. I do see it is marked "Exhibit B", implying that it came up in some sort of proceeding, likely a deposition, but could have been taking of a statement.
-- Are we to believe that the prosecution became aware of it after DeeDee's aborted video deposition but just before Sybrina's two days later. --
I think either the state had it from early interviews with Sybrina, or the state had it the day Sybrina was deposed by O'Mara. The state could have been aware of it before then, and consciously avoided taking it into state's evidence.
-- I'm not buying that it was given to Sybrina on March 19th prior to the Crump interview. --
Then it is Sybrina's fabrication, repeated by Bernardo as a truth. Although, thinking on, by now it could be a shared story between Sybrina and Witness 8.
-- It looks to me as if it could be a cheat sheet scribbled by Witness 8 as a memory aide for her deposition and the date added later. --
I think it is in the nature of a cheat sheet too, maybe just a memory aid preparing for her first telephone interview with Crump, then she haded the cheatsheet to Sybrina, who headed to Crump's place to meet with him and the press. The "Thank you" closing looks like something she is reminding herself to say.
Yes. Bernardo is making the point that Witness 8 is so scared of becoming known, that she identified using a nickname. He goes on, "See attached letter."
-- Another thing I find odd: why would W8 close a note like this with "Thank You"? --
All Bernardo said was that Witness 8 gave the handwritten material to Sybrina. Bernardo is inviting you to conclude that the writing is a letter. It obviously isn't a letter, by its contents. I think it is a something in the nature of a cheat sheet or memory enhancer, handed to Sybrina, maybe intended to be delivered or shown to Crump before that first telephone interview. The "Thank you" is to either remind herself to thank Crump (for the opportunity to speak out), or for Crump to thank her for coming forward.
Why would she give her cheat sheet away before the big test aka interview???
The purpose of a cheat sheet is to have it in front of you to help with the answers to questions or in telling your story. Thus why give it away prior to putting it to use.
What I do see is Witness 8 scribbling these words on paper to have in front of her or to review before her April 2012 interview or even her March 2013 deposition, and then afterwards Sybrina grabbing the scribbled note that is clearly in Witness 8's handwriting and predating it to make it appear as if it had been written by Witness 8 on March 19, 2012.
Maybe she made two, one for her, and one for Crump. Even if she only made one, writing things down can help with the memory.
-- What I do see is Witness 8 scribbling these words on paper to have in front of her or to review before her April 2012 interview or even her March 2013 deposition ... --
It doesn't mirror the April 2012 version very well.
It could be deliberately pre-dated, as you suggest. All sorts of possibilities. But even taken at face value, I don't see it helping the prosecution.
Isn't that bizarre!!!
If that's the case then why sign it at all or put any name on it. If she is handing it to Sybrina then clearly Sybrina knows who wrote it. So what's the purpose in not signing it or signing it with a pseudonym???
The purpose in having the multiple hands involved here is plausible deniability regarding just who would be held responsible for this forgery: the person who wrote it or the person who dated it or the person who signed it or the person who presented it to the court or the person who claimed in his pleading that it was given to Sybrina prior to the Crump interview or the person who it is not addressed to.
Everyone played their part in crafting it. It's community property.
I don't either. So then why release it. No one knew Sybrina had it. It's not addressed to her. This could have easily been dropped in the round file or filed away and it would have never been missed.
So why dredge it up and dredge it up now at a time when Witness 8 is about to be unmasked???
Bernardo coughed up the letter the same day that O'Mara was scheduled to depose Witness 8. I think Bernardo was covering the contingency of O'Mara asking Witness 8 if she ever wrote down her recollection, and any follow up questions.
A re-read of the Response confirms you are correct — he does claim the note is signed with a nickname to hide her identity. And BdlR is such a standup guy, he even blacks out fake names.
I speculate that W8 is thanking Sybrina for helping her develop the talking points so she would know what to say to a big scary lawyer, and for solving her desire to stay out of public involvement by arranging the phone interview scheme (oops...jokes on her). None of that need be nefarious on W8’s part, but would seem to raise enough reasonable doubt to sink W8’s testimony.
In my unhappy experience, subpoena’s commonly require the witness to bring and produce at the depo all relevant documents in their possession. Sounds like the defense got it at Sybrina’s 3-15-13 depo, from Sybrina. On 3-27-13, BdlR provided it as discovery material, AS IF, he also had first received it recently, and already provided it once on 3-15-13. Question is, when did the State really first have it?
I have a feeling that Witness 8 wishes she had never known the Martins.
If events went down as that letter suggests, and she learns within a day or two that her friend is dead, she ... goes mute? That doesn't make sense. Her friend is murdered, she'd make an effort to finger the killer. But she didn't.
Which suggests to me, strongly, that things did not go down as she describes. If she knows Martin started the fight, then going mute makes sense.
Now she's trapped in a very big public spectacle. If she recants, the long knives will be out for her. Snitches get stitches. She'll bluster her way through, perhaps making obvious lies, but sticking to them. I don't think her credibility (or lack thereof) is relevant as Judge Nelson makes an immunity call. The jury is apt to be hung, and Zimmerman can go around the trial merry-go-round again.
O’Mara says it was produced to him by the state, on March 13th this year, just before the deposition with Witness 8. De la Rionda refuses to tell the defense when the state received the evidence.
I thought it was 2 days later at Sybrina's deposition 3/15/13
WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS ON 29 MARCH 2013.
15 March 2013 is what the prosecution's summary of production says (13th supplemental production, 27th of March 2013), noting that a letter from Witness 8 to Sybrina was previously provided.
O'Mara told the press that he received it the day of Witness 8's deposition. I'll go with O'Mara's recollection, although he might be doing the prosecution a favor by assigning that particular earlier date. I give O'Mara's remark credence becuase he would easily remeber receiving that letter on the same day he is scheduled to depose that witness.
George Zimmerman case: State reveals new letter from key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting - By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel, 3:08 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2013
In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel on Friday, defense attorney Mark O'Mara said he received the new letter March 13, the day he deposed Witness 8 in South Florida."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.
“Which suggests to me, strongly, that things did not go down as she describes.”
Amen. Thus her “reluctance”. My theory is that she told Sybrina Fulton what she thought Sybrina wanted to hear (just like the “hospital” lie), probably in increments, then was coaxed through a sense of obligation, tricked, and eased into the trap she’s in now. That a good attorney possessing all the State’s evidence could unravel this in depo’s explains why the State has been so blatantly obstructionist.
I haven’t decided if I’ll support Gov. Scott next time but AG Bondi is a lost cause....a big GOPe Republican. I’ll work against her.
This is such a Soviet style or KKK show trial...I can’t beleive this is modern America. We are headed into the gutter of serious oppression, fast.
I can not beleive the hatred and nonsense I have heard about this case. I can not beleive so many elected officals in Florida have supported this political and racial witch hunt. I feel like I am in a tribal foreign country of people who have never heard of the rule of law nor equality before the law. The judge is so biased, we may as well have the Muslim Brotherhood deciding on whether or not the infidel is guilty of saying the hate-word Jesus.
If liberals don’t like our gun laws, they should change them in a constitutional way. But not make Zimmerman their sacrifical lamb... This is a nightmare.
Having read many of the comments on the Diwata site, I would like to add these:
1]This DeeDee letter is being released by Bernie to try to put a dagger in the Two DeeDee Theory that alleges that there was one DeeDee for the March 19 Crump interview and a different DeeDee for the April 2nd Bernie interview.
2]The handwriting of this letter will match Witness 8’s handwriting. Bernie would not have released if it didn’t, afterall the purpose was/is to have something of Witness 8’s that puts her there at the March 19 interview and this at face value does it.
3]If this letter is accepted at face value, then the DeeDee at the April 2 interview was the DeeDee at the March 19 interview and the Two DeeDee Theory is dead.
4]That’s why Bernie presented the letter to the court — to try to kill the Two DeeDee Theory. It serves no other purpose for him.
5]He didn’t release it because he just got a conscience about withholding evidence and wanted to clear his files.
6]He didn’t release it because he wanted to show that DeeDee was so afraid of being ridiculed that she resorted to using pseudonym as he claims. The pseudonym on the letter is not there to protect her from blogoshpere attacks but to shield her from charges of forgery and/or perjury regarding the letter when it is ever presented in court. After all it’s not her name on the bottom of it. It’s the pseudonym saying all that stuff in the letter. They are pseudowords from a pseudonym.
7]Several things on the letter indicate that the writer was copying it under duress or pressure of some sort and deliberately making mistakes out of her displeasure of having to do so — the most obvious being the misspelling [Trevon] of a name [Trayvon] that she should have known by heart.
8]And then at some later time she is told to predate it for “March 19, 2012” and sign it and does so in a way that makes the letter appear strange so no one will take it seriously — especially the “Thank You” also an add on.
9]And if you are being compelled to copy stuff that you know is not true, then when you are told to sign something that you know is not true, what is better than a pseudonym.
10]Bernie and Crump are trying to pull off a conjob with this DeeDee Letter that is screaming from the housetops: Don’t Believe Me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.