Also today, Judge Lester filed Mark O'Mara's May 18 letter describing the status of the funds. I surmise (but could be wrong) he's preparing to exit the case, and wanted to make sure that everything in his file is part of the court file. O'Mara hadn't filed the bank account details as a pleading, but as correspondence. Since it was sent to the judge personally, it wasn't part of the public record.

First, whatever is "sexual abuse" between kids?

It's sexual abuse.  The alleged abuse occurred up until she was 16 and he was 18, not merely when they were 6 and 8.

Second, has she been watching way too much of the Sandusky case and by being in some sort of jealous state over the attention her cousin (GZ) has received, thrives for the same in this way?

Accusing her of lying because you think she is jealous over the attention Zimmerman is getting (heh) with absolutely no evidence or basis in fact is ridiculous.

Third, given that her parents are involved, where is Matt Gutman now, when we need most, to give us the scoop for what they say about this?

She hasn't spoken about this publicly and (presumably) her parents don't want to do so either.  Whatever bone you have to pick with Gutman has nothing to do with this allegation.

Fourth, I personally have trouble thinking that Witness #9 is nothing short of deranged. I really find ironic so many commenters here seemingly unquestionably give her pathetic statements so much credibility.

Jeralyn has already admonished people to refrain from making speculative assumptions or character attacks on the victims of sexual abuse:

But the rules do not allow character attacks. And speculative assumptions about victims of sexual assault are neither relevant, helpful or appropriate. (so don't bother stating something like if W-9 were really the victim of a sexual assault, she would have done or not done X.)

I personally did not believe W-9  listening to the interview. To my ear, it sounded phony. But that's a matter of opinion. That is fair opinion. What is not allowed is calling her unstable, crazy, vengeful or some other form of character attack.

The aprox 1 min snippet aired on Channel 13 early concerning Zimmerman "family racism" was odd enough to be taken seriously. So why not the rest later?  Witness #9 was earlier heard saying somthing about knowing the Zimmerman's all her life and that GZ's mother once said she was a "racist" and that the Zimmermans when she was growing up would talk about not having a problem with blacks so long as they acted like whites. These are things that people do not typically remember as ever being so serious they are repeated 15-20 years later to suggest people might be racist.  Certainly they are things that as a person matures should be seen in a different light than the way remmebered as heard. After all, GZ's mother being an immigrant from Peru, she would have a different manner of expression and really might be seen to have been naive in her English words at times, she possibly was even being facetious.

Natalie Jackson, attorney for TMs family, was on and disclosed they've known W9 for some time.

On May 12, Daralene Jones, reporter, tweets that she believes she received an anonymous call from W9, she asserts that the voice sounds the same and the story sounded the same.

Interesting bit in the Miami Herald: "O'Mara said he's now put in the position of having to discredit [Witness 9], by pointing out things like that she tried to sell her story to People magazine." (Full story) I thought she sounded honestly upset and traumatized, but now--if this is true that she tried to sell her story--I'm having second thoughts.

I don't think he's particularly good at writing, and maybe not at complex reasoning; but that by no means makes him always wrong.

Expy has convinced me that the allegations of unwelcome sexual contact have a role in this case.  They are relevant.  O'Mara wants to know more about W9, because W9 leveled this allegation: "I know George.  And I know that he does not like black people, and he would start something, he's a very confrontational person, it's in his blood."

Knowing the relationship between W9 and Zimmerman facilitates getting to the basis for her allegation.

Is that not inconsistent with his duties under the O'Mara disqualification motion if he was inclined to find it "legally sufficient"?  i.e. he could not rule on that disclosure motion if he felt bound to disqualify himself.

One interesting item in the newly released discovery that hasn't gotten any coverage.  Zimmerman discussed the Paypal contributions to his defense fund prior to the original bond hearing.  Zimmerman tells his friend "Scott" that he tried to transfer $37,000 from the Paypal account to his wife's account, but it was stopped due to Paypal limits:

"He said he's going to have me declared indigent," Zimmerman told his friend. "I told him I didn't think that would be possible, because there was one sizable transfer I tried to make. It got stopped. You know, $37. He said: `Well that doesn't matter. Right now you're not working. You're not providing an income for your family. You're probably not going to be employable for the rest of your life.'"

At one point the friend asks whether O'Mara knew "the volume" of the donations that came into the PayPal account Zimmerman had set up to solicit donations from the public. Zimmerman said O'Mara knew about the attempted transfer of $37,000, but not any more than that.

...

Reached late Monday, O'Mara insisted he did not know about the money.

"I recall now some conversation of a transfer, but I don't recall a specific amount," O'Mara told The Miami Herald. "If it was $10,000 or $100,000 or $30,000, I would have remembered. It's not the type of thing you would risk your license to practice law over."