Crump is practically saying, "Dee Dee, I want you to say these words: ..."

That's beyond leading a witness. It's creating a scenario that the witness never even admitted to, at least during this recording.

Paragraph 31 says:

To the best of my knowledge, while the Recording does not include the Preliminary Inquiry, it contains every substantive statement that Witness 8 ever made to me in regard to her conversations with Trayvon on February 26, 2012, what she heard or might have been in a position to perceive as a result of those conversations, as well as every other substantive statement that Witness 8 ever made to me that could have a tendacy to prove or disprove a material fact potentially at issue in the Litigation or the instant case (including, but not limited to, those relating to the offenses with which the Defendant has been charged, the potentially lesser included offense of manslaughter, Defendant's claim of self-defense, justifiable homicide, excusable homicide, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law and wrongful death claim). To the extent Witness 8 may have made other statements -- whether arguably relevant, legally discoverable or otherwise -- that are not contained in the Recording but that I was potentially in a position to hear or understand during the Interview, apart from what was said in the Preliminary Inquiry, I have no recollection as to the substance or content of such statements.

 Due to the difficulty hearing Witness 8, Crump would stop the recorder, end the call, take someone else's phone, call her back, and start his recorder again, hoping that another phone would have a clearer speaker.

When he did this at the end of tape 2, it may have been Gutman's phone he used to call her back. Gutman's phone may have had an internal recording device, which he activated before giving it to Crump. So if Crump forgot to re-press the record button on his recorder, or mistakenly assumed he had,  Gutmans' phone could have recorded for five minutes while Crump's recorder did not.

I am aware that the Judge denied the defenses request to depose Mr. Crump. The citing was that the Defense failed to argue it properly. I am aware that since the State has admitted W8 lied under oath and since the defense has again attempted to obtain a deposition because of this.  
I feel a solid way of getting to depose Mr. Crump the Defense needs to specifically state to the the court that there are no other means that exist to obtain the information than to depose Mr. Crump. The information they are seeking is relevant and not privileged, and that it is needed in order for a fair trial. And United Phosphorous opinion should have been noted in the motion. especially after Crumps answers the first time around.