I’d be interested in your opinion here: Is there anything in the newly released ABC tape that could give cause for the defense to revisit the judge’s ruling that protects Crump from being deposed???
“What are you talking about” becomes “What you doin around here” after Crump intervenes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S6WPE8BK8DU
Was [s]he afraid that George was going to beat him or did she just say that Trayvon was going to go back and beat him. How would anyone know another person’s intent — but he would know his own intent. And her immediate response is “No — Trayvon — go home”. He was already going home — so then what was the “No” for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiCC_mnl6VI
Trayvon put on his jacket not hoodie? No mention of vehicle.
And note that Crump wants her to start over again at the altercation, leaving off the part where he lost him and where he goin beat him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=em9Zcou4ay4
Purely from the point of view of obtaining reliable evidence for the state's case, it seems to me the best evidence is or will be the complete recording, assuming ABC has one. Crump's memory and honesty make his testimony pale in comparison (in a search for truth about the state's case).
In a separate case that charges Crump with false testimony, he'd be defendant, so is protected from testifying.
I don't think Crump's dishonesty is as big a deal as DeeDee's. She's the direct witness. You can bet that de la Rionda will see to it that Crump is either present, or obtains a transcript of the DeeDee deposition.
My hunch is that DeeDee knows that Martin was looking to administer a beating, that's why she didn't come forward. Now she's been coached that as long as she sticks to her story, she can't be caught in a lie - it'll be her word against Zimmerman. If I'm West and O'Mara, I'd rather she lose her bearings during trial, rather than during deposition.