- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
On a different topic from what the consensus is on GZ's character, I wonder if there is a technical problem with much of this lawsuit.
The filmmaker went through the cellphone records that were eventually turned over to GZ's legal team, and found four photos of Diamond which make it clear that Jeantel was a different person. Wouldn't GZ's lawyers be held to have known of the witness swap from when they received the cell data? If that is so, it may be that statute of limitations has run -- I don't know how long the statute of limitations is for a case such as this, but six years strikes me as an unlikely length of time.
They barely address this issue in the complaint making a simple statement without factual support. I suspect that a statute of limitations defense will be the first thing that Crump and the State do -- the defamation timeline would be valid though due to the publication date of the book so that part wouldn't be subject to a statute of limitations defense:
EDIT: I would suspect that GZ's legal team's counterargument is that they had no reason to believe that Jeantel was not who the state presented her as -- i.e., the phone witness.
The filmmaker went through the cellphone records that were eventually turned over to GZ's legal team, and found four photos of Diamond which make it clear that Jeantel was a different person. Wouldn't GZ's lawyers be held to have known of the witness swap from when they received the cell data? If that is so, it may be that statute of limitations has run -- I don't know how long the statute of limitations is for a case such as this, but six years strikes me as an unlikely length of time.
They barely address this issue in the complaint making a simple statement without factual support. I suspect that a statute of limitations defense will be the first thing that Crump and the State do -- the defamation timeline would be valid though due to the publication date of the book so that part wouldn't be subject to a statute of limitations defense:
16. The facts pled in this Complaint, which set forth the injury suffered by Plaintiff, were only recently discovered by Plaintiff Zimmerman on or about September 16, 2019 through the publication of the book and film by Hollywood director Joel Gilbert, both entitled The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud the Divided America.
17. September 16, 2019 was the earliest possible date that Plaintiff Zimmerman could have, and did in fact, discover the subject illegal acts and practices of the Defendants which harmed him. October 15, 2019 was when Plaintiff became aware of the book published by Defendants Benjamin Crump and HarperCollins and disseminated widely in this circuit, Florida generally and nationally and internationally.
EDIT: I would suspect that GZ's legal team's counterargument is that they had no reason to believe that Jeantel was not who the state presented her as -- i.e., the phone witness.
Last Edited: