In an earlier post I commented on the improbability of Tracy Martin sending Trayvon to a halfway point to be picked up by Brandy Green when there was a perfectly good bus service available.
The revelations from the mobile phone indicate that Trayvon did in fact travel by bus with the knowledge of Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton and that he was met in Orlando by Green on Tuesday 21st February.
There has been a suggestion that Martin invented the story of the halfway handover because he did not want Fulton to think that he had been a neglectful father. But the phone evidence indicates that Fulton was perfectly aware that Trayvon went by bus to Sanford. Therefore it seems that on the 26th of March both Fulton and Martin committed perjury by stating under oath that Martin had driven Trayvon halfway to Sanford. They also incorrectly said that Trayvon had traveled on Wednesday, the 22nd of February.
Note also that attorneys were present. It is not stated exactly who but probably this would be at least Crump and Parks.
It think it unlikely that Fulton and Martin would consider it neglectful to drive or allow another relative to drive Trayvon to the bus station, to exchange text messages en route concerning the journey and to arrange for him to be picked up at the bus station in Orlando by another adult.
They would presumably have consulted with their lawyers about what to say to the state attorneys so it seems likely that they told this story with the advice of their lawyers. This would seem to be evidence not just of perjury but also of subornation of perjury on the part of Crump and co.
Would the defense be entitled to a further deposition of Martin and Fulton and would they be entitled to question Crump about whether he was aware of this when Fulton and Martin were deposed?
With documents like these it is necessary to ask to what question the statement was a reply and why the question was asked. It is also necessary to ask why a question was not asked.
Brandy Green was deposed the next day. She said nothing about going to the halfway point to pick up Trayvon. If she was asked she gave the wrong answer which was not recorded or the question was not asked. In either case the implication might be that the state was complicit in an agreement between Fulton, Martin and their attorneys to present a false narrative about Trayvon’s journey to Sanford.
But why was this narrative necessary in the first place? The idea that Martin wanted Fulton to think he was a concerned parent can be laid aside. It is possible that the processes by which Trayvon was suspended from school and kept out of the criminal justice system required that he not be allowed to travel except in the company of an adult. This seems plausible but would require confirmation.
It could also be that something happened on the bus and Trayvon needed to be distanced from it. There is the tweet by Trayvon’s cousin about swinging on a bus driver. One of this messages says you “shuda” been on the bus. It is possible that Trayvon had threatened or assaulted another passenger or the driver but there is no clear evidence from the text messages.
In this deposition Fulton said that Trayvon lived with her. That would appear from the text messages to be another falsehood. She also said that the last time she saw Trayvon was on the Wednesday before the shooting, that is the 22nd of February.
One week later Martin was interviewed again and this time he advised that the trip to Sanford had taken place on Tuesday, the 21st not on Wednesday, the 22nd. The evidence of the text messages is that this was the correct date. Also, on April 2nd, Fulton indicated that it was on the Tuesday that she last saw Trayvon.
What had happened to remind Martin and Fulton of the correct date of the journey? It is worth noting that the deposition of April 2nd was the one where Martin was asked whether Trayvon was interested in guns.
Also on April 2nd, Fulton advised that Trayvon was right handed. Why would the prosecution want to know this? Would it have something to do with the photo of a hand holding a gun?
It is a plausible hypothesis that the state had now accessed the contents of Trayvon’s phone and was alerted to the correct date of the journey and was aware of the photo of a gun. If so, it would seem that the state acquired knowledge of the contents of Trayvon’s phone between March 26th and April 2nd. It would require further questioning to determine whether this is correct.
If the state did have know about the contents of Trayvon’s phone as early as March 2012 it would seem that this is evidence of serious misconduct.