Witness #9: Statements & Discussion -- George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Case

serenaz1 wrote:Well that didn't take long. The disgusting treehouse people are tweeting the girl's name & have a post with her pictures, FB, everything!

Right...and earlier I said that she would be ferreted out in no time. Unfortunately, she has unwittingly brought this on herself...sad to say. There's no way that once her statement came out that "many" different folks wouldn't be seeking to find out everything they could about her...am surprised, though, that she was found so quickly...on day one. The "minute" she called the police...that began the clock ticking for her to become publicly known in a high-profile case.

She really hasn't much at all to say wrt Zim being racist - when cornered by LE questions - she said couldn't provide any instances of Zim acting or talking racist.

After listening to her statement twice and mulling it over, she comes across to me as more upset about her family members.

Chickenbutt wrote:KZ, I get how you feel about this being brought up now. What I don't get is are you equating her alledged claim with "he kicks puppies and pulls the wings off flies, too. And dances naked to satanic rituals in his backyard?"
Are you saying she should not have said anything? That an alledged victim of molestion should stay quiet?
Not being a pain, just trying to understand.

Thank you

Alessandra_Deux wrote:

KZ wrote:Quite frankly, it simply DOES NOT MATTER if she is telling the truth, or has some other reason for bringing this up now. This should have been suppressed and dealt with separately.

This is completely irrelevant, and should have had a LOT more legal thought before splashing it out to the general public. This is NO different than discussion of TM's drug and discipline history. In fact, it's a lot worse, IMO. TM's school records are factual, and there is no way to verify anything this woman is saying. She may as well have said GZ is from the planet Mars.

This was breathtakingly irresponsible, IMO. On many levels.

I'm sure he kicks puppies and pulls the wings off flies, too. And dances naked to satanic rituals in his backyard. This makes me sick to my stomach. This is not evidence, or justice. This is as sick as the NBP putting out a bounty on his head.

This is another lynching, IMO. Disgusting.

This has definitely tainted any jury pool.

KZ, I don't believe this is worse than the Sanford Police Department leaking to the media Trayvon's school disciplinary history.

And thank you times Deux

I watched JVM tonight and she had a short segment on W9. Natalie Jackson was on the show - she's the attorney for TM's family - she said they've know about W9 for some time and Daralene Jones tweeted on May 17 that she believes she received an anonymous call from W9 during the course of covering this case - that the voice sounded familiar and the story is familiar.

So, if this is all true, then W9 has had connections with TM's family attorney(s) and at least one member of the press for some time.

That's questionable. And it's probably going to come out, too. If not, why would Natalie Jackson be on JVM tonight to disclose the connection?

Puzzler wrote:

serenaz1 wrote:Well that didn't take long. The disgusting treehouse people are tweeting the girl's name & have a post with her pictures, FB, everything!

Right...and earlier I said that she would be ferreted out in no time. Unfortunately, she has unwittingly brought this on herself...sad to say. There's no way that once her statement came out that "many" different folks wouldn't be seeking to find out everything they could about her...am surprised, though, that she was found so quickly...on day one. The "minute" she called the police...that began the clock ticking for her to become publicly known in a high-profile case.

She really hasn't much at all to say wrt Zim being racist - when cornered by LE questions - she said couldn't provide any instances of Zim acting or talking racist.

After listening to her statement twice and mulling it over, she comes across to me as more upset about her family members.

This is a real shame. When Witness 9 came forward, this case had not gone viral, and I suspect she had finally reached the age of maturity where she had the nerve to come forward about what she knew about GZ and his family. Who knows what finally gives a victim of sexual abuse the nerve to come forward. As a victim of abuse, just being able to finally tell authorities was probably a huge relief. To now have her vilified and dragged through the mud is so very sad. This woman is a victim and she should not be humiliated for coming forward. If anything she should be praised and consoled. I wonder how many other victims of child sexual abuse will be afraid to come forward as a result of the donors' and pro-GZs' hateful comments and outing of her identity? GZ, on the other hand, brought everything that has happened upon himself. Witness 9 is a victim and so is Trayvon.

Puzzler wrote:I watched JVM tonight and she had a short segment on W9. Natalie Jackson was on the show - she's the attorney for TM's family - she said they've know about W9 for some time and Daralene Jones tweeted on May 17 that she believes she received an anonymous call from W9 during the course of covering this case - that the voice sounded familiar and the story is familiar.

So, if this is all true, then W9 has had connections with TM's family attorney(s) and at least one member of the press for some time.

That's questionable. And it's probably going to come out, too. If not, why would Natalie Jackson be on JVM tonight to disclose the connection?

I wouldn't doubt that once the Martins' attorneys found out about Witness 9, they had investigators digging and making contacts. Even so, I don't see the harm. I know that when I finally get up the nerve to talk about something that I know needs to be said, but am having reservations about, when I finally do decide to talk, I am relieved and want to talk about it thoroughly and completely - I am sure it is even more so for a victim of sexual abuse - the relief of it finally being out in the open and no more dark dirty secrets must be so liberating to the point of talking to anyone that will listen. I don't see anything Hinky if Crump or his investigators have spoke with Witness 9. But that's just me.

Professor Leatherman did a post on W9 statement. Below is cut & paste from his post.

Question: Is the evidence admissible at trial?

Answer: Not unless the defense opens the door by introducing evidence that GZ is a person of good character. If the defense opens the door, you will be able to hear a garbage truck backing up to the courtroom door with a load of bad character evidence to be provided in damning detail by W9 and anyone else they can find between now and the trial. According to W9, btw, there is another victim, but she is reluctant to come forward. Who knows, she might change her mind. For example, think of the recently concluded Sandusky case.

The rule in question is Rule 404(b) which prohibits the admissibility of uncharged misconduct unless it is probative of the defendant’s intent, knowledge, motive or opportunity, common scheme or plan, consciousness of guilt or absence of mistake or accident.

The evidence is inadmissible since it does not fall into any of these exceptions, unless the defense opens the door by introducing evidence of good character.

Like I said, Katie bar the door, if that happens.

Professor Leatherman's post: http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-i-love-the-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/#comment-4243

KZ wrote:Wow. If this is the sum total of witness 9's second statement, I can see why MOM tried so hard to keep it out. This information is COMPLETELY unrelated to the shooting, or his mindset during the shooting, or any past history of violence. NO ONE, including his exgirlfriends has accused GZ of ANY sexual assault. Holy cow this is prejudicial. There is absolutely NO WAY to confirm or discredit what this witness is saying. GZ is not being accused of sexually assaulting TM.

If it is true, she should have done something legally about it a long time ago, and gotten herself counseling.

I am NO GZ fan, but this is just so, so wrong. Like Casey Anthony accusing George Anthony of sex abuse. This is the "nuclear" weapon-- sex abuse allegations.

This statement should not have been released or admitted, IMO. Whether or not it is true.

This really pisses me off. Anyone apparently can walk into a police station and make any wild accusation they want, and the judge is going to put it out there? whether or not it's even related to the case???

How, how, how is this ANY different from all of the cries of foul about TM's school disciplinary records??

Because sexual relationships with his ex'es were consensual whereas this was coerced, unwanted and otherwise inappropriate. Travons past would have been relevant *if* he had been caught in the act of committing AND he had a documented history of burglary. Lastly, bear in mind that witness 9 is not a main witness but possibly a very important rebuttal witness.
Ironically this same document dump contained a statement that Zimmy wanted to be a Priest. How fitting.

Here is the dirty truth. Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen and instead of sympathizing with the dead teen and family a good deal of the public sympathized with Zimmerman. So now we have allegations that he molested a child,his cousin- afraid because of his large size.
If Zimmerman is not involved in a high profile case the world calls it as it sees it and says we must protect the person molested person and above all see retribution. You people really think he gets a pass because of this case? I don't. Had he molested my daughter, he would be answering to someone high profile case or not.

Labadorable wrote:Professor Leatherman did a post on W9 statement. Below is cut & paste from his post.

Question: Is the evidence admissible at trial?

Answer: Not unless the defense opens the door by introducing evidence that GZ is a person of good character. If the defense opens the door, you will be able to hear a garbage truck backing up to the courtroom door with a load of bad character evidence to be provided in damning detail by W9 and anyone else they can find between now and the trial. According to W9, btw, there is another victim, but she is reluctant to come forward. Who knows, she might change her mind. For example, think of the recently concluded Sandusky case.

The rule in question is Rule 404(b) which prohibits the admissibility of uncharged misconduct unless it is probative of the defendant’s intent, knowledge, motive or opportunity, common scheme or plan, consciousness of guilt or absence of mistake or accident.

The evidence is inadmissible since it does not fall into any of these exceptions, unless the defense opens the door by introducing evidence of good character.

Like I said, Katie bar the door, if that happens.

Professor Leatherman's post: http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-i-love-the-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/#comment-4243

Labordorable - Thanks!!!! I think that is hysterical, Leatherman puts the onus on MOM for the release of Witness 9's statements, or rather, his failure to prevent them from being released.

I've taken this comment from the Leatherman site:

I would like to get your thoughts on O’Mara’s alleged failure to “know” about the GZ paypal website. I use the word “alleged” because I am deeply disturbed about statements made by Zimmerman in jailhouse call #30 dated arpril 14th, released today. In that call Zimmerman states that he has discussed the website with O’Mara and also tells him about an attempt to transfer $37 (code for 37,000).

Was O’Mara truthful when he said he only found out about the website 4-5 days after the april 20th bond hearing ?

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmerman-jailhouse-calls/george-zimmerman-jailhouse-calls-21-30-released-7162012-audio/

Gotta listen to this portion.

So, according to George, as late as the 14th of April, MOM knew about the Paypal funds... and knew George was moving money...tried to move 37k but could only move 10k. WOW - But in his defense (MOM's) he wasn't aware of the volume.

CherokeeNative wrote:So, according to George, as late as the 14th of April, MOM knew about the Paypal funds... and knew George was moving money...tried to move 37k but could only move 10k. WOW

--he then goes on to also tell scott that omara was going to declare him indigent----again george brings up the 37K ? omara says that doesn't matter, you're not working, can't support your family, probably won't ever be able to work again..blah di blah..

--that was all on the 14th of april, just 3 days after becoming his attorney, and 6 days before the april 20th bond hearing....omara knew about the $$$$$'s that day, that's obvious----and yet still says that he didn't have a clue until april 24th?

Well, if she can identify his "scars" ... going to make a liar out of him and he will have a whole lot of explaining to do!

(Personally, I don't believe this is the correct forum and it may distract from the true case--- the murder of Trayvon.)

Freckles wrote:ellejay--- Do you know which tape that would be? Rec the call with the brother-in-law?

--i just noticed i'm not in the jail call thread---so we'll have to take those discussions over there, but the call you're looking for:

--call #30

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmerman-jailhouse-calls/george-zimmerman-jailhouse-calls-21-30-released-7162012-audio/

Freckles - this forum is still for civil discussion of all the issues. And I'm really glad it's kept that way. We can't all choose little parts to leave out- but we can skip over or just respond or post about things you want to. Easy!

Freckles wrote:
(Personally, I don't believe this is the correct forum and it may distract from the true case--- the murder of Trayvon.)

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897557/zimmerman-defense-attorney-will.html

“Witness 9” accused Zimmerman of sexually molesting her
Posted on Monday, 07.16.12

(snip)
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara called the accusation a “side tornado that comes with a hurricane” -- you have to wait for it to blow over.

“It’s completely irrelevant, and now we will have to waste 50 hours on something that will never make it to a courtroom,” he told The Miami Herald Monday night. “He denies it. He is saying that it never happened.”

O’Mara said he’s now put in the position of having to discredit the woman, by pointing out things like that she tried to sell her story to People magazine.

In her statement, witness 9 said she kept the allegations secret for years because everyone in her family adores Zimmerman.

“He made everyone love him, made everyone laugh and be happy around him,” she said, adding that to her father, Zimmerman was like the son he never had.

(snip)
Crump and his team have known about the woman from the early stages of the case because she approached them after calling the police and prosecutors. Orlando attorney Natalie Jackson, who also represents Trayvon’s family, spoke to witness 9, but declined to discuss what she said.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Yes he did and thank G-d.

Well said.

And to add, our judicial system does not compel counsel for either side of the adversary system to release irrelevant and degrading information.

And "who" gets to decide what is relevant, especially at this stage of the case? Is the prosecution to decide unilaterally that something isn't relevant and withhold it? What if the defense believes it is relevant? Witness 9 previously provided a statement that Zimmerman was a racist. She thus has a status as a potential negative character witness. While the prosecution cannot use her in their case in chief, they can certainly use her as a rebuttal witness if the defendant opens the door by putting on character testimony. It was absolutely necessary to disclose her statements to the defense. The prosecution would be accused of a cover up if they failed to provide this information to the defense.

Plus, keep in mind that Florida prosecutors appear to follow an open file discovery policy, i.e., they simply give the defense everything they have in their files. They did it in the CA case. If that is their practice, which I believe it is, they are not going to start being selective now - fancy the prosecution saying, "we didn't believe the defense would want to know" on appeal. HA The prosecution had knowledge that Witness 9 had made statements that placed defendant's character into question. They were obligated to provide all statements that they had available from any such given witnesses. MOM would have wanted this information and he got it. The prosecution joined with the defense in agreeing that the statements should not be made public - that was the best they could do. Your gripe lies with the Sunshine laws.

ETA - Which by the way (the Sunshine Laws) has me cracking up...for the past week everyone including myself has been on pins and needles wanting to see what Witness 9 had to say. Now that we know, some of you are disgusted - Witness 9's statement being released is a direct result of "the People" voting in favor of the Sunshine Laws. You can't ask for something and then complain when you get it. Just saying....

-It seems like each side determines relevance until they can not, so they submit if it seems like they can not make the call. In this case I think it was pretty clear that her statements offered nothing in the way of racism, and were not relevant to Murder 2, or even spoke to proclivity towards high conflict behavior, and I imagine the state has stronger witnesses who can attest to that.

-Too right.
I think MOM needs her statements but everyone in the public and blogging world does not- My main point of disgust I guess.


-Yes. Yes. Yes it is looking that way!

Freckles wrote:Updated: 5:24 p.m. Monday, June 18, 2012 | Posted: 5:21 a.m. Monday, June 18, 2012
Jail calls: Zimmerman told wife to buy bulletproof vest


" Um, I asked Ken to double up on it, you know, $10 in the morning and then $10 in th evening. And that way you can put, you know, into mine and then you can take, uh, $10 for you and $10 for Susie," George Zimmerman said.

"OK, why can't he just do both of em," Shellie asked.

"Because he can only take it from Peter Pan to mine," he replied."



http://www.wftv.com/news/news/judge-expected-release-jail-calls-between-george-z/nPYWD/

That makes sense - PayPal rules are that you can't take out an amount of $10K or more - only amounts below $10K and that's why we heard about all those $9950 and $9990 disbursements during the second bond hearing. Also, PayPal set up is to one bank account. That would be the account you can transfer money to and George had the PayPal set up to Zim's bank account.

WeeBonnie wrote:Freckles - this forum is still for civil discussion of all the issues. And I'm really glad it's kept that way. We can't all choose little parts to leave out- but we can skip over or just respond or post about things you want to. Easy!

Freckles wrote:
(Personally, I don't believe this is the correct forum and it may distract from the true case--- the murder of Trayvon.)

Was I not being civil?

IMO, you may have misunderstood what I was saying.
I was commenting witness 9 should have reported to authorities ON HER OWN MERIT.
She had placed it in the wrong forum. IMO, She should not have attached it to Trayvon's murder.

I realize it may have taken her years to build the courage to step forward but why not sue on her OWN behalf independent of Trayvon's murder? Had she done that, there would have been a prior that would then have gone to GZ' character and that would have possibly added strength to the State's case now. The timing is also of relevance.

Bumping this forward as it provides crucial info on FL law:

CherokeeNative wrote:Prosecution for sexual assault or abuse has a statute of limitations of four years in Florida. In regards to child molestation specifically, there have recently been many changes to the statute of limitations nationwide. Indeed, eleven states have completely removed the limitations for child-sex crimes in the past 10 years. But after the Supreme court ruled that retroactively changing the statute of limitations (in order to prosecute crimes from long ago) was unconstitutional, many states were forced to scrap plans to do just that (Florida was one such state). The current law only allows four years from the date of the incident, but Florida has an extremely large number of complicated exceptions to it's limitation rules.

KZ wrote:Omg. And Angela Corey's history with the Cristian Fernandez case-- after Cristian's attys rejected a horrible plea, she filed NEW charges against the actions of Cristian AS A 8-10 yo, that if convicted, require him to register for LIFE as a sex offender. No kidding.

Hmmmm. Lots to speculate about there. Think sex assault charges will be filed on this? Was this a WITNESS statement, or a formal COMPLAINT?

This should NOT have been released TODAY, if it was released at all. Dirty, dirty, dirty.

I lost a LOT of respect for Judge Lester with this decision today. This was NOT a thoughtful legal decision. Not by a long shot. It's not as if she walked into the police station with a video of the shooting or something. This is irrelevant and incendiary.

If she had filed a complaint BEFORE he was arrested it would be one thing but now ?? Yes, I think it would be incendiary and is certainly a distraction from the murder case. IMO, I think she should file a complaint on her own behalf and hopefully it would be heard PRIOR to the murder trial going before a jury. This way, IF there is evidence GZ was complicit in a sexual molestation they jury may be informed of the legal proceeding against him. As it is now, it distracts from the Martin case and cheapens the validity of her own case reducing it to he said/she said.

serenaz1 wrote:

Freckles wrote:IMO
If not, then this info should be kept out.
It could be strong grounds for an appeals (if a guilty verdict were made) as it IS highly inflammatory.

This could also disqualify potential jurors IF they have heard/read of the allegations.

This is the part that disturbs me about the Sunshine Law. Pretty much ANY discovery/evidence publicly released can be considered prejudicial by one side or the other, right?

It's inflammatory, but so was the info they illegally released on Trayvon's school records & all the crap that's now been put out about his irrelevant activities by Z's supporters.

You are so right, the defense just wants what THEY want in, what ever is beneficial to them. Things always leak out about a defendant, with or without the sunshine law. O'Mara practices in the Sunshine State, he is well aware of what he is up against.

Witness #9 also states that the whole family hates black people, including George the shooter. George can not have everything his way. If it was left up to George he wouldn't have been arrested to begin with moreless be given a large bond, or his lies not believed or that Trayvon had no right to be walking down the street period, moreless with a hoodie on.

I'm not worried about Georgie winning an appeal, I doubt that would ever take place. Appeals are rarely given because of what leaked out to the public. The leak would still be there even with a new trial. Georgie is just hoping that his case can get THROWN out due to this and that's not about to happen. Just because a criminal doesn't think the can get a fair trial doesn't mean he wont go to trial.

Years ago, I asked a college instructor a hypothetical question: Given the sparsity of the settlements and the small size of the towns when America's wild west was being settled, how DID they find an impartial jury (or one not known or related to the defendant, the judge, the attys) to fulfill the requirements of the Constitution?

The answer: They didn't. They did, however, rely on the jurors to set aside their opinions and influences to attempt to come to a judgment fair to the defendant and meeting the courts requirements. (Perhaps there was a stronger commitment to conscience? I dunno. That would be a very broad sweep, IMO.)

Now that it is out that O'Mara was aware of money being transferred from one account to another prior to the first bond hearing, I wonder how he is going to talk his way out of this. For an attorney that was willing to take this case on "pro bono", sure lost it when he started hearing about donations. He should have warned his client abot discussing it on the jail house phone.

O'Mara was just in hope that the judge would continue George on the same bond after he disclosed to the court about the money. It's no wonder O'Mara was swallowing his lips when Lester revoked the bond.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Notice%20of%20Filing%207%2013%2012.pdf

MOM's letter to Judge Lester bond:
--page 3: MOM is telling the judge Mom had to explain the process to George, Shellie, AND MR ROBERT ZIMMERMAN! MOM states they did not know about the bondsman and were fixing to mortgage DAD'S home and GRANDMOTHER'S home. Why? Because they did not understand.


Did MOM forget? MAGISTRATE ZIMMERMAN KNEW THE LAW< PRACTICED THE LAW< DISPENSED THE LAW<

Edited:
Page 8
There are TEN transfers on 4/24. Look at the date and the amounts. All under the magical 10,000.

Freckles wrote:http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Notice%20of%20Filing%207%2013%2012.pdf

MOM's letter to Judge Lester bond:
--page 3: MOM is telling the judge Mom had to explain the process to George, Shellie, AND MR ROBERT ZIMMERMAN! MOM states they did not know about the bondsman and were fixing to mortgage DAD'S home and GRANDMOTHER'S home. Why? Because they did not understand.


Did MOM forget? MAGISTRATE ZIMMERMAN KNEW THE LAW< PRACTICED THE LAW< DISPENSED THE LAW<

I know, it's all BS in the first degree. They were all trying to fool the court, which is why I believe that Lester did exactly what he did. They all understood perfectly. They all put it to the BROTHER having the pay pal account (the only one that was not present at the hearing) and when Shellie said that she probably would be able to reach him, O'Mara slipped right over that. He did not want the brother to be reached. They are all full of it.

They want just what they want to be publicized and nothing else.

Tamta wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:

And "who" gets to decide what is relevant, especially at this stage of the case? Is the prosecution to decide unilaterally that something isn't relevant and withhold it? What if the defense believes it is relevant? Witness 9 previously provided a statement that Zimmerman was a racist. She thus has a status as a potential negative character witness. While the prosecution cannot use her in their case in chief, they can certainly use her as a rebuttal witness if the defendant opens the door by putting on character testimony. It was absolutely necessary to disclose her statements to the defense. The prosecution would be accused of a cover up if they failed to provide this information to the defense.

Plus, keep in mind that Florida prosecutors appear to follow an open file discovery policy, i.e., they simply give the defense everything they have in their files. They did it in the CA case. If that is their practice, which I believe it is, they are not going to start being selective now - fancy the prosecution saying, "we didn't believe the defense would want to know" on appeal. HA The prosecution had knowledge that Witness 9 had made statements that placed defendant's character into question. They were obligated to provide all statements that they had available from any such given witnesses. MOM would have wanted this information and he got it. The prosecution joined with the defense in agreeing that the statements should not be made public - that was the best they could do. Your gripe lies with the Sunshine laws.

ETA - Which by the way (the Sunshine Laws) has me cracking up...for the past week everyone including myself has been on pins and needles wanting to see what Witness 9 had to say. Now that we know, some of you are disgusted - Witness 9's statement being released is a direct result of "the People" voting in favor of the Sunshine Laws. You can't ask for something and then complain when you get it. Just saying....

-It seems like each side determines relevance until they can not, so they submit if it seems like they can not make the call. In this case I think it was pretty clear that her statements offered nothing in the way of racism, and were not relevant to Murder 2, or even spoke to proclivity towards high conflict behavior, and I imagine the state has stronger witnesses who can attest to that.

-Too right.
I think MOM needs her statements but everyone in the public and blogging world does not- My main point of disgust I guess.


-Yes. Yes. Yes it is looking that way!

It absolutely is not up to the prosecution to make that call as to relevancy. First, I admit if someone called up and gave a statement that George likes grilled cheese sandwiches, this would be irrelevant and they could most likely make that call, but I bet they wouldn't - I bet they would hand it over with the rest of the statements. But in this case, since it was negative towards GZ and because there is that potential to use the statement in rebuttal, they had no choice, they cannot risk being accused of withholding information. I believe MOM would even agree on that. It is the Sunshine Law that has caused this to be released.

But, Tamta, I continue to question why everone is upset about this coming out when each and every one of us were up here bright and early yesterday morning salivating over Witness 9's statement coming out. We are drawn to this case, we post each and every new happening and discuss it at length. We are what causes the media to want this information to publish. We can't have it both ways - either we want to be able to track the evidence and everything that is going on in the case, or we need to shut up and sit back and wait for it to play out in trial. I for one will take the good with the bad. GZ will still get a jury of his peers. Most people are intelligent enough to set aside these accusations and only consider the evidence relating to the murder of Trayvon. In my opinion, this only means that the defense will not be able to "dumb down" the jurors, but will need to select jurors who are at least intelligent enough, or care enough about justice, to be able to do that. Drats for MOM. LOL

At yay yay! I just noticed half the posts on this page were moved for being OT.
And I should have moved this. Oh boy! Tricky stuff, LOL!

WeeBonnie wrote:Freckles - this forum is still for civil discussion of all the issues. And I'm really glad it's kept that way. We can't all choose little parts to leave out- but we can skip over or just respond or post about things you want to. Easy!

Freckles wrote:
(Personally, I don't believe this is the correct forum and it may distract from the true case--- the murder of Trayvon.)

I agree Cher. For anyone who questions why this girl didn't open her mouth earlier, they only have to look around and see some of the reactions here. Think about it, if he had punched someone or stolen their lunch money everyone would be thrilled to discuss it. But only accusations of a sexual nature are beyond the pale huh? So she's supposed to keep her mouth shut unless she can prove it the very moment she makes the accusation. These reactions are what makes victims of sex abuse keep silent. This and the inevitable "it wasn't so bad" or "nuts and sluts" excuses.
She has been given plenty of reasons by society- and her family- to keep her mouth shut. They were indebted to the Zimmermans when this happened, she was entrusted to them. Horrible situation for a child.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Tamta wrote:

-It seems like each side determines relevance until they can not, so they submit if it seems like they can not make the call. In this case I think it was pretty clear that her statements offered nothing in the way of racism, and were not relevant to Murder 2, or even spoke to proclivity towards high conflict behavior, and I imagine the state has stronger witnesses who can attest to that.

-Too right.
I think MOM needs her statements but everyone in the public and blogging world does not- My main point of disgust I guess.


-Yes. Yes. Yes it is looking that way!

It absolutely is not up to the prosecution to make that call as to relevancy. First, I admit if someone called up and gave a statement that George likes grilled cheese sandwiches, this would be irrelevant and they could most likely make that call, but I bet they wouldn't - I bet they would hand it over with the rest of the statements. But in this case, since it was negative towards GZ and because there is that potential to use the statement in rebuttal, they had no choice, they cannot risk being accused of withholding information. I believe MOM would even agree on that. It is the Sunshine Law that has caused this to be released.

But, Tamta, I continue to question why everone is upset about this coming out when each and every one of us were up here bright and early yesterday morning salivating over Witness 9's statement coming out. We are drawn to this case, we post each and every new happening and discuss it at length. We are what causes the media to want this information to publish. We can't have it both ways - either we want to be able to track the evidence and everything that is going on in the case, or we need to shut up and sit back and wait for it to play out in trial. I for one will take the good with the bad. GZ will still get a jury of his peers. Most people are intelligent enough to set aside these accusations and only consider the evidence relating to the murder of Trayvon. In my opinion, this only means that the defense will not be able to "dumb down" the jurors, but will need to select jurors who are at least intelligent enough, or care enough about justice, to be able to do that. Drats for MOM. LOL

sorry Freckles! Double misunderstanding there!
First I thought I was still in general discussion, OOOO!
Maybe because there WERE such a mixed bag of topics last night?!?!
Then I thought you said you (not 9) were in the wrong forum.
So I was wrong and wrong again.
I disagree about us judging what "9" should have done - I think most jurisdictions put under 2 years into a low offense category. The law may just as easily swept it under the rug, and torture her in the process. It's a lot to expect. Until we're better - as a society about treating the victims I don't think it's fair to say. Her own family convinced her to keep her mouth shut. If they had felt differently shed gave probably called the police. She needed some support and found none.

WeeBonnie wrote:Freckles - this forum is still for civil discussion of all the issues. And I'm really glad it's kept that way. We can't all choose little parts to leave out- but we can skip over or just respond or post about things you want to. Easy!

Freckles wrote:
(Personally, I don't believe this is the correct forum and it may distract from the true case--- the murder of Trayvon.)

--omara w/ piers morgan last night.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/16/pmt.01.html
--July 16/2012---Piers Morgan

--snipped--

Mark, welcome back. These are on the face of it --

MARK O'MARA, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN'S ATTORNEY: Good evening, Piers.

MORGAN: -- very explosive and potentially damaging allegations. What can you tell me about them?

O'MARA: Well, on the face of it, you're right, they seem damaging. Of course as you have mentioned my frustration is that they're absolutely not relevant to anything that is at hand in the true case. They're not admissible. They're not going to get it into a courtroom. Nor will they get before a judge in any way. So the frustration that I have is these allegations which George contends are untrue.

Now we need to spend our resources and time rebutting them. And actually to put it in a difficult if not delicate position of deciding how much we attack the source of these -- this story, or just leave it be and move on to what really counts.
~~~
MORGAN: Clearly very emotional testimony there from this woman on this recording. It's hard to work out what her motivation is. Do you have any suspicions yourself as to why she came forward and said this now?

O'MARA: There actually were some other events that happened in the family dynamics that we will get into if we need to. ( do tell omara!)I will remind you, Piers, as I'm sure you're aware of, her first statement was the day before to the same police. She called anonymously. And said that the whole Zimmerman family were a bunch of racists. That all of them were racists. And that George was, though she cannot come up with any indications or examples of how he was.

Now we also know that the FBI who seemingly has completed their report has said the exact opposite. That George is not a racist. And even with their intense looking into him, they cannot come up with one example of it. So I would suggest that maybe her first statement suggests racism questions her credibility. The next day she makes up allegations about sexual abuse. And also seemingly doesn't -- don't have any corroboration to them.
~~~~
MORGAN: You've already requested to have Judge Lester removed. I presume after this huge dump of stuff today that feeling has been reinforced, is it?

O'MARA: Well, actually, I had asked the state. We filed a motion this morning asking the state not to release the information and here's the reason. With the motion to recuse if Judge Lester grants it, I certainly think that he should based upon the rule but that's his decision. If he grants it, then all of his recent rulings, including the decision to release witness nine's statements, would be subject to review or reconsideration. So we had asked the state this morning to just delay since there was no rush to do this, delay until we had an opportunity for the subsequent judge to review it. They decided not to.

--more@link.

ellejay wrote:--

-- snipped --
~~~~
MORGAN: You've already requested to have Judge Lester removed. I presume after this huge dump of stuff today that feeling has been reinforced, is it?

O'MARA: Well, actually, I had asked the state. We filed a motion this morning asking the state not to release the information and here's the reason. With the motion to recuse if Judge Lester grants it, I certainly think that he should based upon the rule but that's his decision. If he grants it, then all of his recent rulings, including the decision to release witness nine's statements, would be subject to review or reconsideration. So we had asked the state this morning to just delay since there was no rush to do this, delay until we had an opportunity for the subsequent judge to review it. They decided not to.

--more@link.

From what I read, he didn't file the motion in time. He was on the courtroom steps, on his way in to file the motion, at the time the information was released at the time that had been announced well in advance. So he didn't really ask to have the release delayed. Am I wrong in my facts or is he trying to fool someone?

Is it true that W9 tried to sell her story to People magazine, or is that a rumor started by the pro-GZ faction?

Puzzler wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897557/zimmerman-defense-attorney-will.html

“Witness 9” accused Zimmerman of sexually molesting her
Posted on Monday, 07.16.12

(snip)
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara called the accusation a “side tornado that comes with a hurricane” -- you have to wait for it to blow over.

“It’s completely irrelevant, and now we will have to waste 50 hours on something that will never make it to a courtroom,” he told The Miami Herald Monday night. “He denies it. He is saying that it never happened.”

O’Mara said he’s now put in the position of having to discredit the woman, by pointing out things like that she tried to sell her story to People magazine.

In her statement, witness 9 said she kept the allegations secret for years because everyone in her family adores Zimmerman.

“He made everyone love him, made everyone laugh and be happy around him,” she said, adding that to her father, Zimmerman was like the son he never had.

(snip)
Crump and his team have known about the woman from the early stages of the case because she approached them after calling the police and prosecutors. Orlando attorney Natalie Jackson, who also represents Trayvon’s family, spoke to witness 9, but declined to discuss what she said.

--article update:

--(omara putting out 'mis-truths' again..)

O’Mara said he’s now put in the position of having to discredit the woman, by pointing out things like that she tried to sell her story to People magazine. The magazine’s executive editor said Tuesday that no one there ever spoke to her or was approached for such a story.

MollyK wrote:

From what I read, he didn't file the motion in time. He was on the courtroom steps, on his way in to file the motion, at the time the information was released at the time that had been announced well in advance. So he didn't really ask to have the release delayed. Am I wrong in my facts or is he trying to fool someone?

Is it true that W9 tried to sell her story to People magazine, or is that a rumor started by the pro-GZ faction?

---his motion is time-stamped as rec'd @ 10:56 a.m. July 16th......a big 4 minutes to spare.

--if you ask me, it was all a big show for their $$$$$$upporters, file the motion, and then have them cry about the big bad state all day long for 'going ahead and releasing the docs anyway" .

--and yes-----turns out people magazine was not approached by W9-----yet more incorrect info from omara.

O'Mara wouldn't have put out to the press that she tried to sell her story to People magazine without having something to back it up - who knows - maybe she said she tried to sell her story to People.

I understand People has said "no", but there's something to this....it's just going to probably take months to find out what it is.

Puzzler wrote:O'Mara wouldn't have put out to the press that she tried to sell her story to People magazine without having something to back it up - who knows - maybe she said she tried to sell her story to People.

I understand People has said "no", but there's something to this....it's just going to probably take months to find out what it is.

I certainly hope not. But he is claiming that he tried to stop the release of the information yesterday. If that were really true, he would have filed his motion well before 10:56 yesterday.

MollyK wrote:

Puzzler wrote:O'Mara wouldn't have put out to the press that she tried to sell her story to People magazine without having something to back it up - who knows - maybe she said she tried to sell her story to People.

I understand People has said "no", but there's something to this....it's just going to probably take months to find out what it is.

I certainly hope not. But he is claiming that he tried to stop the release of the information yesterday. If that were really true, he would have filed his motion well before 10:56 yesterday.

Yes, it was barely there before the deadline - but it was there and all of us knew it was on the way in advance - and I would think that the State was aware before we were made aware. The State decided to release the information anyway - even though everyone knew the stay was going to be filed momentarily.

Question is, why did the State go ahead and release to the public, after being made aware the filing was being made and it was "timely" filed (meaning before the deadline). So...what was the State's motive for handling the release in such a manner?

Puzzler wrote:O'Mara wouldn't have put out to the press that she tried to sell her story to People magazine without having something to back it up - who knows - maybe she said she tried to sell her story to People.

I understand People has said "no", but there's something to this....it's just going to probably take months to find out what it is.

O'Mara has lost all credibility with me, he's as big of liar as his client, so I wouldn't put anything past him now. Heck, Taaffe could have told him this & he'd probably say it without confirming, just to throw more red herrings out there.

Puzzler wrote:

MollyK wrote:

I certainly hope not. But he is claiming that he tried to stop the release of the information yesterday. If that were really true, he would have filed his motion well before 10:56 yesterday.

Yes, it was barely there before the deadline - but it was there and all of us knew it was on the way in advance - and I would think that the State was aware before we were made aware. The State decided to release the information anyway - even though everyone knew the stay was going to be filed momentarily.

Question is, why did the State go ahead and release to the public, after being made aware the filing was being made and it was "timely" filed (meaning before the deadline). So...what was the State's motive for handling the release in such a manner?

But Puzzler, everyone, including the Defense knew the release was scheduled for 11:00am since last week. Why did they wait until 10:56, why not have it drawn up and ready to go as soon as court opened for business?

ellejay wrote:

Puzzler wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897557/zimmerman-defense-attorney-will.html

“Witness 9” accused Zimmerman of sexually molesting her
Posted on Monday, 07.16.12

(snip)
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara called the accusation a “side tornado that comes with a hurricane” -- you have to wait for it to blow over.

“It’s completely irrelevant, and now we will have to waste 50 hours on something that will never make it to a courtroom,” he told The Miami Herald Monday night. “He denies it. He is saying that it never happened.”

O’Mara said he’s now put in the position of having to discredit the woman, by pointing out things like that she tried to sell her story to People magazine.

In her statement, witness 9 said she kept the allegations secret for years because everyone in her family adores Zimmerman.

“He made everyone love him, made everyone laugh and be happy around him,” she said, adding that to her father, Zimmerman was like the son he never had.

(snip)
Crump and his team have known about the woman from the early stages of the case because she approached them after calling the police and prosecutors. Orlando attorney Natalie Jackson, who also represents Trayvon’s family, spoke to witness 9, but declined to discuss what she said.

--article update:

--(omara putting out 'mis-truths' again..)

O’Mara said he’s now put in the position of having to discredit the woman, by pointing out things like that she tried to sell her story to People magazine. The magazine’s executive editor said Tuesday that no one there ever spoke to her or was approached for such a story.

I went back to the original link (above) to see the "article update" but I didn't see it. Is the update located at a different link?

Puzzler wrote:
I went back to the original link (above) to see the "article update" but I didn't see it. Is the update located at a different link?

Yes, it's there, about 3/4 of the way down the first page.

serenaz1 wrote:

Puzzler wrote:
I went back to the original link (above) to see the "article update" but I didn't see it. Is the update located at a different link?

Yes, it's there, about 3/4 of the way down the first page.

Thanks! I found it.

I worked at People and one of their "stringers" would certainly put out feelers and ask. Mind you, the National Enquirer probably did too.
But they'd not touch it or take it to a meeting without verifying all of it and do a big new photo story with her. Even then, they could have shot it down the moment it was mentioned.
Why do we care or act surprised by anything the media does?
It's a BS distraction and IF it happened she said NO.
Jeeze!

Puzzler wrote:O'Mara wouldn't have put out to the press that she tried to sell her story to People magazine without having something to back it up - who knows - maybe she said she tried to sell her story to People.

I understand People has said "no", but there's something to this....it's just going to probably take months to find out what it is.

serenaz1 wrote:

Puzzler wrote:O'Mara wouldn't have put out to the press that she tried to sell her story to People magazine without having something to back it up - who knows - maybe she said she tried to sell her story to People.

I understand People has said "no", but there's something to this....it's just going to probably take months to find out what it is.

O'Mara has lost all credibility with me, he's as big of liar as his client, so I wouldn't put anything past him now. Heck, Taaffe could have told him this & he'd probably say it without confirming, just to throw more red herrings out there.

O'Mara is a lying greedy pig. All roads lead to Rome. He's pandering to the filth that supports GZ's defense. They are foaming at the mouth trying to dig up dirt on her as we speak. I don't even have to go to other sites to confirm it. People like that hide behind their monitors and spew hate all day long. Disgusting.

I just want to say that I'm really glad that no one here - even if they express disbelief or disgust that the allegations have come out- is attacking the victim.
I have seem some pretty disgusting things out there, and that's a big reason why I don't want to join those sites.

Thanks everybody for keeping cool heads and keeping the conversation respectful. We are the company we keep!

CherokeeNative wrote:

Tamta wrote:

-It seems like each side determines relevance until they can not, so they submit if it seems like they can not make the call. In this case I think it was pretty clear that her statements offered nothing in the way of racism, and were not relevant to Murder 2, or even spoke to proclivity towards high conflict behavior, and I imagine the state has stronger witnesses who can attest to that.

-Too right.
I think MOM needs her statements but everyone in the public and blogging world does not- My main point of disgust I guess.


-Yes. Yes. Yes it is looking that way!

It absolutely is not up to the prosecution to make that call as to relevancy. First, I admit if someone called up and gave a statement that George likes grilled cheese sandwiches, this would be irrelevant and they could most likely make that call, but I bet they wouldn't - I bet they would hand it over with the rest of the statements. But in this case, since it was negative towards GZ and because there is that potential to use the statement in rebuttal, they had no choice, they cannot risk being accused of withholding information. I believe MOM would even agree on that. It is the Sunshine Law that has caused this to be released.

But, Tamta, I continue to question why everone is upset about this coming out when each and every one of us were up here bright and early yesterday morning salivating over Witness 9's statement coming out. We are drawn to this case, we post each and every new happening and discuss it at length. We are what causes the media to want this information to publish. We can't have it both ways - either we want to be able to track the evidence and everything that is going on in the case, or we need to shut up and sit back and wait for it to play out in trial. I for one will take the good with the bad. GZ will still get a jury of his peers. Most people are intelligent enough to set aside these accusations and only consider the evidence relating to the murder of Trayvon. In my opinion, this only means that the defense will not be able to "dumb down" the jurors, but will need to select jurors who are at least intelligent enough, or care enough about justice, to be able to do that. Drats for MOM. LOL

Hi CN,

I hear you on the cherry picking of information and the Sunshine Law aspect.

BBM.

Basically, my general sense is, is that it is because of it's potentially prejudicial impact that W9 has on this case, and that the Judge had a responsibility from which, to protect the future proceedings.

Clearly W9 is basically useless to the State, even though it's a good idea for the Defense to be aware of her contact with their adversary and the content of her statements.

Yes, the trial is a long way away, yes it is likely may never be heard from, however for the part of the public where the ends do not justify the means, that means little.

WeeBonnie wrote:I worked at People and one of their "stringers" would certainly put out feelers and ask. Mind you, the National Enquirer probably did too.
But they'd not touch it or take it to a meeting without verifying all of it and do a big new photo story with her. Even then, they could have shot it down the moment it was mentioned.
Why do we care or act surprised by anything the media does?
It's a BS distraction and IF it happened she said NO.
Jeeze!

Puzzler wrote:O'Mara wouldn't have put out to the press that she tried to sell her story to People magazine without having something to back it up - who knows - maybe she said she tried to sell her story to People.

I understand People has said "no", but there's something to this....it's just going to probably take months to find out what it is.

Your scenario makes sense - W9 seemed to be talking to several people and, as you say, could have talked with someone about her story, but it never got any farther than first base. We know from a Tweet by Daralene Jones (wftv reporter) on May 17 that Daralene says she believes she got an anonymous call from W9 - voice sounds familiar and story sounds familiar.

WeeBonnie wrote:I agree Cher. For anyone who questions why this girl didn't open her mouth earlier, they only have to look around and see some of the reactions here. Think about it, if he had punched someone or stolen their lunch money everyone would be thrilled to discuss it. But only accusations of a sexual nature are beyond the pale huh? So she's supposed to keep her mouth shut unless she can prove it the very moment she makes the accusation. These reactions are what makes victims of sex abuse keep silent. This and the inevitable "it wasn't so bad" or "nuts and sluts" excuses.
She has been given plenty of reasons by society- and her family- to keep her mouth shut. They were indebted to the Zimmermans when this happened, she was entrusted to them. Horrible situation for a child.

CherokeeNative wrote:

It absolutely is not up to the prosecution to make that call as to relevancy. First, I admit if someone called up and gave a statement that George likes grilled cheese sandwiches, this would be irrelevant and they could most likely make that call, but I bet they wouldn't - I bet they would hand it over with the rest of the statements. But in this case, since it was negative towards GZ and because there is that potential to use the statement in rebuttal, they had no choice, they cannot risk being accused of withholding information. I believe MOM would even agree on that. It is the Sunshine Law that has caused this to be released.

But, Tamta, I continue to question why everone is upset about this coming out when each and every one of us were up here bright and early yesterday morning salivating over Witness 9's statement coming out. We are drawn to this case, we post each and every new happening and discuss it at length. We are what causes the media to want this information to publish. We can't have it both ways - either we want to be able to track the evidence and everything that is going on in the case, or we need to shut up and sit back and wait for it to play out in trial. I for one will take the good with the bad. GZ will still get a jury of his peers. Most people are intelligent enough to set aside these accusations and only consider the evidence relating to the murder of Trayvon. In my opinion, this only means that the defense will not be able to "dumb down" the jurors, but will need to select jurors who are at least intelligent enough, or care enough about justice, to be able to do that. Drats for MOM. LOL

I am a licensed health care professional.
As to her claims I can not address.

However addressing sexual abuse in a family dynamic is a very complicated and delicate endeavor, as it is personally.
The victims, and those who are intimate with them, require immense safety and ongoing support and guidance.
I would never advise a patient to pursue healing in this way.

Sadly, families often respond with denial, and private recourse is always a necessity whether the family can transcend to a place of acceptance or not, and whether she will ultimately feel able or compelled to a confrontation with her alleged abuser or seek legal recourse.


The public can deal with their own feelings of conflict between empathy for the content of her claims and whether cognitively they find her credible or not because of the context in which she chose to make her experiences public.

Her choice to address what are critical issues as a potential victim, in the way she opted to, IMO has put her in a very unsafe place - the opposite of what she needs to investigate and heal.
Just look at the scrutiny, and in some cases resentment and judgement, that she and now her family, are now under as you mention.

Shame compounded upon shame.
Heartbreaking.

I think right now about the two women who committed suicide after Nancy DisGrace trashed them on national television.

I hope this young woman is strong and that those close to her will rally to help her re-instate some safety and address her past and current issues.

If Christina is reading: please do not talk to the press or these lawyers anymore until you "have" to and do not go alone when you do, make an appointment with a therapist, and go spend a week or so away in a beautiful place with someone who cherishes you.

Tamta wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:I agree Cher. For anyone who questions why this girl didn't open her mouth earlier, they only have to look around and see some of the reactions here. Think about it, if he had punched someone or stolen their lunch money everyone would be thrilled to discuss it. But only accusations of a sexual nature are beyond the pale huh? So she's supposed to keep her mouth shut unless she can prove it the very moment she makes the accusation. These reactions are what makes victims of sex abuse keep silent. This and the inevitable "it wasn't so bad" or "nuts and sluts" excuses.
She has been given plenty of reasons by society- and her family- to keep her mouth shut. They were indebted to the Zimmermans when this happened, she was entrusted to them. Horrible situation for a child.

I am a licensed health care professional.
As to her claims I can not address.

However addressing sexual abuse in a family dynamic is a very complicated and delicate endeavor, as it is personally.
The victims, and those who are intimate with them, require immense safety and ongoing support and guidance.
I would never advise a patient to pursue healing in this way.

Sadly, families often respond with denial, and private recourse is always a necessity whether the family can transcend to a place of acceptance or not, and whether she will ultimately feel able or compelled to a confrontation with her alleged abuser or seek legal recourse.


The public can deal with their own feelings of conflict between empathy for the content of her claims and whether cognitively they find her credible or not because of the context in which she chose to make her experiences public.

Her choice to address what are critical issues as a potential victim, in the way she opted to, IMO has put her in a very unsafe place - the opposite of what she needs to investigate and heal.
Just look at the scrutiny, and in some cases resentment and judgement, that she and now her family, are now under as you mention.

Shame compounded upon shame.
Heartbreaking.

I think right now about the two women who committed suicide after Nancy DisGrace trashed them on national television.

I hope this young woman is strong and that those close to her will rally to help her re-instate some safety and address her past and current issues.

If Christina is reading: please do not talk to the press or these lawyers anymore until you "have" to and do not go alone when you do, make an appointment with a therapist, and go spend a week or so away in a beautiful place with someone who cherishes you.

Tamta - TY Excellent post!