"Therefore, we respectfully request that the United States Department of Justice investigate the circumstances surrounding this meeting between Chief Bill Lee and State Attorney Norm Wolfinger, in which they disregarded the lead homicide investigator's recommendation to arrest George Zimmerman for manslaughter," wrote Crump in the letter to [Deputy Assistant (US) Attorney General Roy] Austin.
And Wolfinger's response without CNN's cruft spitting up the context:
"I am outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter by Benjamin Crump to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austin dated April 2, 2012," wrote Wolfinger. "I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred. I have been encouraging those spreading the irresponsible rhetoric to stop and allow State Attorney Angela Corey to complete her work. Another falsehood distributed to the media does nothing to forward that process."
I'm still looking around for accounts that have Wolfinger saying he met with Lee, or Lee saying he met with Wolfinger, or similar (with Wolfinger being involved in the discussion, the night of the shooting); where the account is attributable to an official source.
If I don't find something, I think we're stuck with an ambiguity for now. ...
Maybe not. Read Crump's letter - he alleges Zimmerman family members were present. I can understand why Wolfinger would be upset about that allegation.
Sure sounds like the lawyer is “axing” his friends in higher places to investigate and affirm lies.
Maybe Z should go after his law license.
I suppose that if he thought any of that letter were false, I can understand why he would have such a response. But it’s still not clear what in particular he is denying. I suspect he’s not denying all of it.
He is trying to remain credible by letting Corey handle the case, and by distancing himself from the case. It might work, particularly if Corey decides to indict. Then the focus will be on her.
Wolfinger may be denying a meeting to conspire against the investigation happened; not necessarily denying that a meeting happened.