We feel a responsibility to make a public, affirmative stance against any and all incidents of cyber attacks or “doxing” to anyone associated with this case, any one suspected as being associated with this case, or to anyone who contributes to the conversation about this case.
We have heard that some witnesses, or possible witnesses, and supporters on both sides of this case have been the victims of cyber attacks or doxing (the act of publishing personal documents about the individual on the Internet). With a case of such intense scrutiny, we are in uncharted waters regarding how the case is discussed publicly, and the online accessibility of individuals associated with the case. As the defense team, we have taken a well-documented proactive stance on how we manage our digital media presence. Our policy regarding digital media makes us particularly aware of the online conversation regarding our case, and we attempt to adjust our online presence as we see the need.
We first became aware of these concerns while we hosted the George Zimmerman Legal Case page on Facebook. Part of the reason we discontinued our presence on Facebook was because we were uncomfortable being in any way associated with people engaged in such practices and we refused to provide a platform where this practice could take place.
We understand that there may have been such actions directed at individuals who may be associated with Witness #8. In an October 19 hearing, the defense team requested a Subpoena Duces Tecum for the social media accounts of Witness #8; however, we intentionally did not disclose her name or any possible Twitter handle out of respect for her privacy. (We still have not been informed of her Twitter handles). If there is an individual who has been mistaken as Witness #8, and if this individual has been subjected to these practices, then we feel that those who knew Witness #8’s identity and therefore her Twitter handle, such as the State Attorneys Office or the handlers of the Martin family, have had many specific opportunities through social media or press conferences to publicly correct the misrepresentations and end the concerns -- an opportunity they have yet to take. We implore them to do so now, to minimize any further damage. If they know the Twitter handles are of a person unrelated to the case, why has this not been publicized?
We are taking this opportunity to say that we do not condone or encourage such practices; and anyone who wishes to make a beneficial contribution to this case must know that they do a considerable disservice if they engage in such practices, and we unequivocally condemn the practices mentioned above.