There's a new revelation: ABC's Matt Gutman recorded the entire Witness 8 interview but destroyed all but the five minute segment missing from Crump's recording that surfaced a few weeks ago. O'Mara writes:
Out of the 25-minute clear recording ABC News took of the interview, ABC has only preserved the 5-minute clip referenced supra. Mr. Crump should not be able to hide behind his own technical incompetence and now claim that he cannot be
deposed on these very relevant issues; certainly not when his actions created the issues that now must be investigated.
Is this why Mara hasn't set his motion to subpoena ABC's recording for hearing? Because ABC has told him the only portion retained was the 5 minute clip available on its website? What about the clips from Gutman's other interviews with Witness 8, aired during ABC broadcasts?
Also, apparently O'Mara has not yet conducted the continuation of Witness 8's deposition:
Counsel for Petitioner took a partial deposition of Witness 8 on March 13, 2013 which only led to more questions and confusion as to her interaction with Mr. Crump.
There is a terrific summary of Crump's involvement in the petition's section on public policy arguments in favor of taking Crump's deposition. Rather than rephrase it, I'll just reprint this part:
Mr. Crump led the effort to pressure the State of Florida to charge Mr. Zimmerman with the murder of Trayvon Martin. To fuel his effort, Mr. Crump solicited the help of a public relations firm App. CC: 266. With the firm's help, Mr. Crump made several high-profile television appearances where he made accusations about law enforcement corruption, speculated about the evidence in this case, and accused Mr. Zimmerman of an egregious act by stating repeatedly that George Zimmerman "profil[ed], pursu[ed], and confront[ed] Trayvon Martin and then kill[ed] Trayvon Martin in cold blood." App. H: Clip 8; 00:35.
More significantly, Mr. Crump sequestered Witness 8, coordinated her first interview (App. H: Clip 1 ), misstated the circumstances regarding the taking of the statement, and shared select portions of the interview with the press while simultaneously refusing to reveal the witness' identity or testimony to law enforcement or provide any other information to the agencies responsible for the investigation.
A civil lawyer with a vested interest in the outcome of the case should not be allowed to keep evidence from law enforcement; potentially influence significant witnesses; speak on national television about evidence he claims to exist and witnesses he has spoken with; accuse several law enforcement agencies of dishonesty; otherwise play a central role in the media persecution; and then gather evidence to further the prosecution of the Petitioner and, as a result, significantly threaten Mr. Zimmerman's chance of having a fair trial, yet claim he is not subject to a deposition regarding non-privileged matters.
O'Mara also points out that Crump, in the Gutman recording of Witness 8's interview (which is missing from his own recording) contradicts his own clients, something I discuss at length here and here. Both of Martin's parents told the prosecutor just a few weeks after the interview they hadn't discussed with Witness 8 the details of her final phone calls with their son.
If you are just tuning in to the Witness 8 issue in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case, or want a refresher, see my earlier posts:
More posts touching on Witness 8 are here. There are more than 1,000 comments in this thread on Witness 8 in our Zimmerman Forums.
My opinion: Crump has been burning both ends of the candle for far too long. It's time for the court to snuff out the flame on one end. If he wants to play investigator, share his results with the public, and make grand public announcements that state officers and officials have lied, and George Zimmerman is guilty of cold-blooded murder, he shouldn't be allowed to play hide and go seek when asked to provide information as to the reliability of his claims. He made the decision to go public with his dubious claims, which were relied on by the state in filing charges against Zimmerman. He filed an affidavit, parts of which are either mistakenly or intentionally inaccurate. Whatever privilege he might have had as to Witness 8 by virtue of his representing the Martin family had he not gone public, should be deemed waived. He has made himself a witness, and neither the attorney-client nor work-product privilege should protect him.
