Replies

This ABCNews article dated March 20 suggests that ABCNews reporters were actually present when she gave the account to the Martin attorney Crump.

"ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life."

"The lawyer said he would give the details of the phone call to the federal investigation."

So it appears that the girl is giving this account to ABCNews and Crump about three weeks after the incident, and that Crump is writing the interview up into a statement to give to investigators.

Of course any ABCNews article cannot be taken as objective, especially by Matt Gutman.

Was this a "reenactment" of an earlier account given to Crump by the girl, or the first time? If it was the former, it is sleazy of ABCNews to suggest otherwise, but then again ABCNews is sleazy.

Was this a "reenactment" of an earlier account given to Crump by the girl, or the first time?

I recall reading your link [fixed] when it first came out. I hadn't assumed she was telling her story for the first time. I had earlier heard that Crump had taken her affidavit much earlier, presumably before the story went national. Earlier accounts are more credible than later accounts, especially in this case.

Another interesting thing about Martin's call log shown in that article:

Namely, the call to 911 on 03/02/12 at 12:45 pm. Did Martin have the phone passworded, so that only 911 would work? Is that the Sanford PD calling themselves to find out the phone's number? Is that how long it took the Sanford PD to begin investigating what intelligence they could glean from the phone?