Posted on 03/05/2013 10:51:32 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
George Zimmerman's "stand your ground" hearing will not begin April 22 as planned, after his lawyer Mark O'Mara told a judge this morning he will not need the court time she'd set aside...
Attorneys for George Zimmerman were expected to ask his judge this morning to order the state's most important witness, the young Miami woman who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin just before he was shot, to produce medical records.
However, defense lawyer Don West made a startling claim shortly after the hearing began: The state had revealed, before the hearing, that there are no medical records.
The woman, the defense lawyer said, "misrepresented" in a sworn statement that she missed Trayvon's funeral because she had been hospitalized.
"In fact, she lied," West said.
Prosecutor John Guy confirmed there will be no medical records, effectively confirming that there was no hospital trip.
The defense had requested the records to challenge her story. Zimmerman is not in court today. The hearing started about 9 a.m.
The young woman, typically referred to as Witness 8, already had credibility problems: Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon's family, identified her as 16 years old when he played for reporters a recorded interview he conducted with her in March.
But she was 18 at the time and 19 now, O'Mara says....
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
From Witness 8s BDLR deposition:
BDLR: OK. Im not saying that they did. Im just making sure the records clear on that .Um you obviously found out about what happened to Trayvon, right? And at some point you ended up knowing that he was killed, right?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Were you able to go to the funeral or to the wake?
Dee Dee: I was goin to go, but
BDLR: OK, what happened?
Dee Dee: I didn feel good.
BDLR: OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?
Dee Dee: Mmmm Yeah, I had high blood pressure.
[Bernie putting words in her mouth, making sure to get that on the record, and prompting her to say Mmmm...Yeah to his question. And just where did he get the idea that she was in the hospital???]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V7aVLbKXZnQ
One question:
Is this more evidence that there are two DeeDees??? That BDLRs 18y/o DeeDee did not go to the hospital, but only claimed she did for the deposition to maintain the charade that she was the earlier DeeDee.
Note how determined BDLR was to get this on the record at her deposition to maintain the charade.
We have multiple lies going on here and the state is part of it. They knew from the start that this was not the first DeeDee and have carried on the charade since day one.
West asked the prosecutor a viable question — When did the state become aware that she had not gone to the hospital. But the prosecutor refused to answer and then he judge intervened to save their rear ends.
Ok - but would it matter if the charging affidavit stated:
“During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening.....The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why.”
Shouldn’t the defense have the right to validate whether or not this conversation happened?
And doesn’t the presence of this statement in the Charging Affidavit presume that the prosecutor has at least validated that a phone call happened? Which would mean that the phone records should already have been ‘released’ by the Martin family and given to the prosecutor.
If not, shouldn’t the judge have slapped down the prosecutor for using unsubstantiated heresay from a 16 y/o girl as a basis for charging?.
And can’t the judge suppress any other phone calls to drug dealers, etc in court? I don’t understand why the possible presence of embarassing information in the records would make the entire record off limits.
It seems simple to me - a very sketchy report from a 18 y/o girl (who was deliberately mis-represented as a 16 y/o girl) was used in the Charging Document! The defense should at least have the right to inspect the phone record and see if this is true.
And...if the prosecutor happens to know that its a false statement, he is supposed to bring that to the attention of the court.
The way things are going, the only evidence allowed will be the NBC re-enactment. For some reason, the media and forces I don’t comprehend want to pin the murder of a black kid on a Latino Democrat, so they can somehow point the finger at white republicans.
So is it safe to assume that SHE will now be charged with perjury? I mean Shellie Zimmerman was charged, so this woman should be as well. Right?
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.