Why Nelson was pissed at West:

West disclosed to the media that Nelson conducted a hearing, closed in violation of Florida Sunshine Law, at which Nelson entertained an oral motion to sequester the jury, and who knows what else. West said that Nelson ruled that the jury would be sequestered. Nelson said that she didn't.

Note that Nelson has granted most everything else that Bernie asked for, but denied two motions to gag. Why? Because gag orders are immediately appealable and media attorneys would promptly appeal and likely get Nelson reversed.

Nelson is hypersensitive to the media and the Sunshine Law, as was Lester. Recall that Lester also wanted to keep things secret, but lamented that his hands were tied by the Sunshine Law.

Who was present in the courtroom when Nelson lashed out at West and denied ruling on an oral motion to sequester the jury at a secret hearing? A media attorney.

sundance says:
May 29, 2013 at 7:55 pm

Regarding “deleted”.

If you go through the evidence discovery O’Mara presented you’ll note the stuff with the “deleted” attribution is the stuff most damaging to the narrative.

It would be natural to think that Trayvon “deleted” stuff from his phone he didn’t want mom/dad to see – such is normal teenage activity I guess. However, in these example(s) again, look, those “deleted items” are more sensitive to the narrative than risk to a teenage kid.

Trayvon would, if behaving like a traditional secretive teen, be hiding texts about getting or using weed, or maybe about other things of a similar teen secrecy.

But that does not describe what is reflected as “deleted”.

So, a possibility exists that “deletions” were made after death – to retain the narrative or hide misbehavior(s) which would contradict the narrative.

But the phone was in the custody of the police – ie. law enforcement – at all times after death.

Did the cops delete stuff? Did the State prosecutor? or did someone else.

Not beyond belief that cops or prosecutor would – but the risk to them would be quite large, and even for the most corrupt – it would be dangerous. Even crooked cops know their limits and are risk adverse.

If someone else, who? Who and how?

Return yourself to the scene of evidence storage/collection? Who could get in there? Who would have a motivation to do it, and be able to get in there? Who would have a relationship with the folks who work there, have a motivation to do it, and be able to do it?

Maybe someone who works right next door – in Juvie?

Optimistic says:
May 30, 2013 at 2:34 pm

I think your close to it. I’ve been struggling trying to figure out the prosecution’s theory of the case, and keep getting nowhere. Every argument I come up with for supporting 2nd degree opens up a door for bringing in Trayvon’s background.
Its fairly clear to me that BDLR’s game plan is to force George to testify, and hope to cross him up there, and Judge Nelson has handed a lot of that to him already (i.e., NEN call and interviews are hearsay), but if BDLR brings in the NEN call, its all admissible, not just the portions that BDLR wants to use. BDLR gets a witness (NEN operator, etc . . .) to testify as to George having said ___, then MOM can ask if he has anything to prove that ___ isn’t correct, and cross with other portions of the NEN call (did you ask him what Trayvon was doing then?). Same with the interviews, if BDLR wants to bring them in to argue inconsistencies, the whole interviews are admissible under the whole document rule. Even if BDLR argues that George’s statements aren’t admissible for the truth of the statements (hearsay rule), the jury will have heard them. Witness 8 on cross opens up a whole bunch of other issues, so where is he going?
Further note, and where I think MOM screwed up, Nelson disallowed statements about Trayvon, but MOM didn’t file a motion in limine to exclude statements about George (unduly prejudicial, etc.)
The Court is really confused about who is the victim, and whose reputation is to be protected. If Sam tries to rape Susan, and Susan kicks him to the ground until the police arrive, you can’t bring in Susan’s background (the “she asked for it defense.”) If George had just kneed Trayvon in the groin, and held him to the ground until the police showed up, the charges would be assault against Trayvon, and info about George the victim wouldn’t be admissible. Now that Trayvon has died, the State gets to reverse the roles, ignore that the evidence shows that Trayvon was the assailant, and now info about the assailant (Trayvon) isn’t admissible, but info about the victim (George) is. The evidentiary rules that BDLR is arguing, and that Nelson is buying, are based on innocent victim, clear assailant, not self defense, where the roles get muddied and somewhat reversed.

If this whistleblower testifies that he deleted or witnessed someone within the SAO deleting items, it's immediate Game Over for the State. That will be an instant Motion for Dismissal. I did read that at the Treehouse, but it is also popping up on news sites.

I just read that in passing while catching up at CTH.

I got to thinking, seriously what the State opening might include?

Although I pride myself on being able to write a short piece of BS on any topic (That is a skill needed to pass University exams)...

So far I am a bit stuck..... anybody want to try writting an outline of an opening statement for Bernie?

Trayvon was just getting candy and George got out of the car. The prosecution rests.

And we're finding that these Shmendricks are still trying to figure out checkers, right, my friend?

Brandy, your a fine girl what I good wife you would be, but my heart my love and my lady, is the sea...er some lady named Alicia who raised my son when his momma Sabrina didn't want to.

I think those are the lyrics aren't they?

There seems to be a lot of chatter about someone in the SAO physically deleting texts from the phone. Sorry if I missed any discussion about this earlier. Is there any truth to this?

I understand that there is supposed to be some "Startling Revelation" today at 5pm via Click Orlando. I am sure it's hyping an interview with MOM but my ears are perked.

There's a house on a gated way
And it sleeps two or three thugs a day
Lonely losers pass the time away
And text about their crimes

And there's a girl in this sweltering town
And she works lockin' young punks down
They say "Brandi, please keep the truth down"
She serves up Trayvon fables and lies