Update on the gun question

Michael Mortimer was there first about the gun yesterday.

http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-30-rebuke/#comments

“I worked all afternoon on this. I like it. Will comment later, but here is what I sent MOM West.

1. Regarding Zimmerman’s May 2013 Sanctions Motion, as it says on the left page, at the bottom highlighted paragraph, Zimmerman complains that prosecutors are “hiding the ball,” stalling, and thwarting discovery, and denying him due process. Where highlighted MOM West are saying prosecutor de la Rionda has been in possession of Trayvon Martin’s cell phone content for at least a few months.

IMO, the investigation memo on the right PROVES that since March 2012 (NOT 2013) de la Rionda has been in possession of Trayvon’s incriminating cell phone data (that is, the pics and text messages prosecutors two weeks ago gave to MOM West.)

I contend this because why 30 days after the shooting would de la Rionda go into such detail about Trayvon and guns?

True, prosecutors could have been attempting to poke holes in Zimmerman’s story, that Trayvon saw or felt his gun and made a play for it. If Trayvon knew nothing about guns then Bernie could perhaps impeach this aspect of Zimmerman’s version of events.

Note: This would be motive for de la Rionda to at least stall giving the information or data to MOM West, so on the eve of trial when all are busy preparing for trial, MOM West would not think to use the April interview and cell phone data it to defeat this line of the prosecutor’s attack.

2. A second reason Tracy’s interview is important, his son had pic of himself holding a “loaded” gun and texted about guns. The report proves Tracy Martin LIED to law enforcement on April 2, 2012; and it is proof of Tracy Martin’s false and fraudulent narrative for 15 months told around the world.

3. If Tracy Martin was being truthful in his statements to the police on April 2, 2012, then it is proof Tracy Martin did not know his son at all. Where this matters: should the state put Martin on the stand to attest his son could not have been the aggressor, at the minimum his April 2 statements will discredit his entire testimony.

In other words, how can Tracy testify how well he knew Trayvon (ergo, the state will argue, he could not have been the aggressor) if Tracy did NOT know about something as significant as his 16-year-old son texting about guns and having pics on his cell phone of his holding a pistol.

This further paints prosecutors in a corner.

IMO they can’t put Tracy Martin on the stand to wax poetic about Trayvon.”

Advertisements

One comment

  1. They can’t put ANYONE on the stand to wax poetic about Trayvon. As soon as they do, all of the character/reputation info about Tray on becomes relevant. They’ve boxed themselves in on that point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: