Is it factually known that Crump “sat on” the girlfriend for 16 days? Is it factually known whether it was Crumps or the girls parents decision for her to come forward? Is it anything other than right-wing talking point bullshit to suggest that Crump told the girl what to say?
No but:
-
It is “factually known” that Crump knew about the girlfriend and the phone call on March 3rd.
-
It is “factually known” that Crump first came out to the press and told them about the girlfriend on March 19th (or 20th - not sure).
Ok, so what is your position on the matter?
This reminds of an old Steve Martin routine about how to become a millionaire and never pay taxes. First, Steve explained, get a million dollars. Then…
So…“with a little iniative and resourcefulness?”
How, specifically, could they have unlocked it with a little iniative and resourcefulness? Explain this to me, because we just got through demonstrating that this vision isn’t accurate at all for today’s smartphones. So what, exactly, specifically, should they have resourcefully and initiatively done?
Well, this:
A more realistic plan is outlined in Stedman Graham’s book, “Seven Steps to Financial Success.”
Step #1: Move in with Oprah.
I’m kinda late to the party on this one.
Not sure if it’s different over there, but round here, it would be trivially easy to take the SIM out of Martin’s phone, put it into another phone and get the number. Then it would be simple to get a full history of calls from the carrier.
No reason to break codes, or do anything special at all…
-
If your SIM card is locked, you put it in another phone, it will ask for the password.
-
If you’re the phone owner, can can prove it, you can get a full history of calls from the carrier. If you’re the police, you have to get a court order and go through the whole bureaucratic rigamarole. Which will take a while.
Yep, and if it had been a locked phone and it turned out the last call had gone to a voice mail and recorded something incriminating him, the people calling the cops incompetent for not hacking the phone, would be calling them criminal for violating privacy.
I don’t know who you people are that want our police at all levels to actively circumvent personal privacy protections. Me? I will sleep a lot better knowing it took them a while and hope that it also means they got warrants and or subpoenas as needed.
When they started needing something to attach their cellphones to. 
Like others have said, there’s nothing immediately important that you can get based on that information. The police would have to wait to get a warrant and for the cell phone company to respond to the request. Better to interview witnesses and try to track down Martin’s family.
I’d like to see a show of hands from those who worry about violating the privacy of a person who has been killed in the street, and specifically as such a concern relates to the police investigating the killing?
Anyone?
Pardon me? What am I missing here… Martin was the victim. The dead victim. Since when do we worry about the dead victim’s privacy and getting warrants for the dead victim’s phone records? Is that how it actually works?
Yes, this is how it works. The police actually cannot just call a phone company and say “gimme this number’s call record”. You’re surprised? And when the government obtains phone call records, it is violating the privacy of every caller on the list, as well.
None of this changes when you’re dead? None of this changes when you’ve been killed?
I’m willing to stipulate that the Sanford Police Department are idiots, but the information we have in front of us is that either Crump was doing a piss poor job of representing his clients, Trayvon’s parents, and getting their son’s killer convicted or he was suborning perjury.
I don’t understand why you don’t thing that DeeDee’s statement is important. She directly contradicts what Zimmerman’s says about the words exchanged between Martin and Zimmerman. If the jury believes her, that might make the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.
Why would it? The phone company can’t just take the word of a cop that the cell phone owner is dead and doesn’t have rights any more. It it did, every cop that called trying to get records would use the story, “This guy’s dead and no longer has any privacy rights.” So they need authorization. And a court seems unlikely to process an order regarding a corpse faster than it would a live person.
The phone company doesn’t know he’s dead. The cops can’t prove to the phone company that he’s dead, until they can prove that the phone belongs to the dead guy. Which they can’t do without the phone records. Which they can’t get without a subpoena.
Is this that hard to fathom?
Why the attitude?
Your answer appears to be “yes, it actually does change once someone is dead, but sometimes it is an issue proving it at first.” If that’s incorrect, I welcome clarification.
Your Step 1 works here as well, assuming the SIM is not locked,but even then I agree it’s easy to unlock a locked SIM.
It’s step 2 that is a problem. Here, the law requires that police obtain a court order before carriers will release that information. And carriers typically take days to process these requests.
So Bricker, I’m asking you: do dead people, especially dead victims of killings, still have the same “rights” that living people do, requiring the same steps be taking to access their papers and phone calls and whatnot?