PDA

View Full Version : GZ Case - Defense Perspective



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Phoenixfla
04-30-2012, 10:05 PM
Thought I would start a thread to discuss the case from the perspective of the defense. Debate and discussion encouraged, but the purpose of this thread is to keep an open mind to the possibility that GZs story is accurate, and may have been acting in self defense.

Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 03:36 PM
Here is a good link to a transcript of all the 911 calls.:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-florida-teen-is-shot/

Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 03:40 PM
You know how the defense could resolve the 911 screams:

Recreate the call using the exact phone, in the same apartment to call 911 and have it recorded with GZ screaming 'help help help'. Then compare that tape to the original.

chefmom
05-03-2012, 03:42 PM
Has anything been said about possible video from the security cams around the complex or at the Clubhouse? I am very interested in seeing what, if anything, may have been captured. That would go a long way toward clearing up exactly what happened during the encounter with these two.

chefmom
05-03-2012, 03:44 PM
You know how the defense could resolve the 911 screams:

Recreate the call using the exact phone, in the same apartment to call 911 and have it recorded with GZ screaming 'help help help'. Then compare that tape to the original.

That would be helpful if MO'M would allow it. Also, if they could get video of TM speaking.

Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 03:54 PM
That would be helpful if MO'M would allow it. Also, if they could get video of TM speaking.

I never understood how they can conclude anything without both voices to sample. I understand that the results show a certain percentage match, and those results must then be interpreted. I contend that it is possible that the match to TM's voice COULD have been a lower percentage than GMs, but without analysis of TMs voice also, the analysis is majorly flawed.

chefmom
05-03-2012, 04:00 PM
I never understood how they can conclude anything without both voices to sample. I understand that the results show a certain percentage match, and those results must then be interpreted. I contend that it is possible that the match to TM's voice COULD have been a lower percentage than GMs, but without analysis of TMs voice also, the analysis is majorly flawed.

Agree. They need a sampling of both voices in order to say with any certainty whose voice it is. I don't know if they will bother doing it if the testing isn't allowed in court, but they may. I would like to hear the results if they are able to take it further.

gxm
05-03-2012, 04:06 PM
I never understood how they can conclude anything without both voices to sample. I understand that the results show a certain percentage match, and those results must then be interpreted. I contend that it is possible that the match to TM's voice COULD have been a lower percentage than GMs, but without analysis of TMs voice also, the analysis is majorly flawed.

I agree. Without TM's voice to sample, I don't see how it can be used by the prosecution, especially given that the one witness says the man in the red "sweater" was on the ground screaming for help. IMO, it is quite likely that both TM and GZ were screaming.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 04:39 PM
I agree. Without TM's voice to sample, I don't see how it can be used by the prosecution, especially given that the one witness says the man in the red "sweater" was on the ground screaming for help. IMO, it is quite likely that both TM and GZ were screaming.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Gilbreath eluded to the fact that the FBI has also analyzed them. Can't wait to see their analysis.

katydid23
05-03-2012, 06:27 PM
I am not sure that it matters who was screaming. Because I think there is a good possibility that at the time of the screams, they were both fighting over control of the gun.

katydid23
05-03-2012, 06:30 PM
If TM was just laying on the ground screaming for his life, and GZ was sitting on top of him, holding him at gun point, waiting for LE to arrive any second, WHY the heck would he pull the trigger?

GZ KNOWS there are plenty of people there already looking out their windows. Why would he shoot someone for no reason on front of many witnesses just as LE is about to appear? The only reason that I can think of is that he was battling over control of the gun and had no choice.

highflyer
05-03-2012, 06:35 PM
I am not sure that it matters who was screaming. Because I think there is a good possibility that at the time of the screams, they were both fighting over control of the gun.

I disagree. Screaming would be expressing fear and wanting help. It is important.

katydid23
05-03-2012, 06:38 PM
I disagree. Screaming would be expressing fear and wanting help. It is important.

Exactly, expressing fear, wanting help, as you fight over a loaded gun.

jjenny
05-03-2012, 11:10 PM
Gilbreath eluded to the fact that the FBI has also analyzed them. Can't wait to see their analysis.

He said he had no insight into who was screaming. IF FBI could arrive to any conclusion why does he have no insight?

LiveLaughLuv
05-04-2012, 09:02 AM
One of those inconsistencies: Zimmerman told police Trayvon had his hand over Zimmerman's mouth during their fight on the night he shot Trayvon.

The Sentinel's source confirmed that Zimmerman's statements include that allegation. But authorities do not believe that happened, the source told the Sentinel, because on one 911 call, someone can be heard screaming for help. If it were Zimmerman, as he claims, his cries were not muffled, the source said.

Zimmerman also told police, the source told the Sentinel, that while the two were on the ground, Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun, and the two struggled over it.

Those portions of Zimmerman's account are not corroborated by other evidence, the source said.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503,0,163416.story


BBM

If that horrific scream for help was from GZ and his claim of TM covering his mouth with his hands, you'd hear it muffled but that's not the case, in my belief..

That horrific scream for help, I believe, was TM for right after the POP, the scream stops...if it were GZ, he'd continue to scream, not get off TM's dead body (back) and immediately put his hands to his head while he paced..I don't believe for one nanosecond that horrific scream was GZ..

Which is part of the depravity of his charges...I believe there might be other depravities we are not privy too yet...

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 09:15 AM
He said he had no insight into who was screaming. IF FBI could arrive to any conclusion why does he have no insight?

I made the same exact argument a few days ago. That seems evident to me also, but some maintain that Gilbreath would have to know with certainty for him to have "insight".

I speculated that the FBI analysis was either inconclusive, or it contradicted what the other two "experts" claim.

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 09:17 AM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503,0,163416.story


BBM

If that horrific scream for help was from GZ and his claim of TM covering his mouth with his hands, you'd hear it muffled but that's not the case, in my belief..
That horrific scream for help, I believe, was TM for right after the POP, the scream stops...if it were GZ, he'd continue to scream, not get off TM's dead body (back) and immediately put his hands to his head while he paced..I don't believe for one nanosecond that horrific scream was GZ..

Which is part of the depravity of his charges...I believe there might be other depravities we are not privy too yet...

Unless the REASON he covered GZ mouth was because he was screaming? Perhaps it went like this....scream, scream, scream, cover mouth, pull gun, shoot.

raeann
05-04-2012, 09:37 AM
He said he had no insight into who was screaming. IF FBI could arrive to any conclusion why does he have no insight?

The meaning of the word "insight" is intuitive understanding. Courtroom testimony regarding the FBI tape analysis is a matter of scientific analysis and FACT, therefore, the INTUITION of a detective is not a means of determining for a COURT case who was screaming. The answer given by this witness was very appropriate---answer the question asked, but offer NO extra information until the appropriate time and the expert person with the actual factual analysis is available on the stand.

jmo

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 11:09 AM
The meaning of the word "insight" is intuitive understanding. Courtroom testimony regarding the FBI tape analysis is a matter of scientific analysis and FACT, therefore, the INTUITION of a detective is not a means of determining for a COURT case who was screaming. The answer given by this witness was very appropriate---answer the question asked, but offer NO extra information until the appropriate time and the expert person with the actual factual analysis is available on the stand.

jmo

But that still means that Gilbreath does not have a definative answer, or else he would not need intuition.

gxm
05-04-2012, 11:47 AM
Unless the REASON he covered GZ mouth was because he was screaming? Perhaps it went like this....scream, scream, scream, cover mouth, pull gun, shoot.

IMO, I find GZ's claim that TM covered his mouth (or attempted to cover his mouth) to be very plausible. And, you make a good point that this is when GZ might have been able to grab his gun.

LambChop
05-04-2012, 01:18 PM
He said he had no insight into who was screaming. IF FBI could arrive to any conclusion why does he have no insight?

It could be because they are conducting their own investigation and until they are finished I doubt you will see much from the FBI. They aren't governed by the same rules as the state. He may not have insight because he has not seen their final report. He only is aware that there will be one. jmo

stilettos
05-04-2012, 01:56 PM
There is a ton of assuming and speculating going on in order to push public perception of GZ to an innocent man. The only facts in evidence? GZ put killer bullets in his gun. IMO, the only reason a person uses these bullets is to make sure and kill someone. GZ took his weapon on watch that night. GZ profiled TM by the way he LOOKED. GZ called 911 and was told not to follow TM. GZ disregarded LE instructions, took his weapon out of the truck, follwed TM and shot him dead. The other evidence on social media? <modsnipped>

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 01:57 PM
It could be because they are conducting their own investigation and until they are finished I doubt you will see much from the FBI. They aren't governed by the same rules as the state. He may not have insight because he has not seen their final report. He only is aware that there will be one. jmo

I have considered that, and still believe that is possible, but his testimony was that they had conducted an analysis (past tense). I may be reading too much into the past tense language though.

LambChop
05-04-2012, 02:15 PM
I have considered that, and still believe that is possible, but his testimony was that they had conducted an analysis (past tense). I may be reading too much into the past tense language though.

Not sure you followed the Anthony case but her attorney wanted information from them and they would not release it until they were good and ready. They don't have to and can sit on it for a long time until they do a formal report. It could be they are planning on running more tests. It could be there is some new software coming in or an expert they want to set up testing with. They don't answer to the State of Florida, nor will they answer to MOM. He will have to wait until the FBI decides they are ready to release information. I don't believe they are obligated to when they are still investigating a case. And they do have an open case unless someone has heard they have closed it. But I believe it is ongoing.

What could be worse for GZ, not only the State is looking into this but the FBI and the Justice Department. Seems to me no stone will be unturned. jmo

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 03:07 PM
Not sure you followed the Anthony case but her attorney wanted information from them and they would not release it until they were good and ready. They don't have to and can sit on it for a long time until they do a formal report. It could be they are planning on running more tests. It could be there is some new software coming in or an expert they want to set up testing with. They don't answer to the State of Florida, nor will they answer to MOM. He will have to wait until the FBI decides they are ready to release information. I don't believe they are obligated to when they are still investigating a case. And they do have an open case unless someone has heard they have closed it. But I believe it is ongoing.

What could be worse for GZ, not only the State is looking into this but the FBI and the Justice Department. Seems to me no stone will be unturned. jmo

If the results have not been released to the investigator then I agree with you, but I have not seen any evidence other the use of past tense in his testimony. I agree that is not strong evidence that he has the results.

I did not watch CA nearly as closely. I felt (and still feel) that she was guilty. I am following this case much more closely because I am not convinced of GZs guilt.

Karmady
05-04-2012, 03:15 PM
The poll thread got me thinking again about "depraved mind," so I went looking for a case and found this one. This is the current standard in Fla., so this is what it will be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a muder 2 conviction.


An act which is imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind has further been defined as an act “that (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.” Conyers v. State, 569 So.2d 1360, 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

vlpate
05-04-2012, 03:18 PM
The poll thread got me thinking again about "depraved mind," so I went looking for a case and found this one. This is the current standard in Fla., so this is what it will be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a muder 2 conviction.


An act which is imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind has further been defined as an act “that (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.” Conyers v. State, 569 So.2d 1360, 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

I really don't see how she came up with Murder 2. The only possible crime on the charging document is the actual shooting. One would think there would be stalking, terrorist threats, racial slurs, something.

Karmady
05-04-2012, 03:28 PM
I really don't see how she came up with Murder 2. The only possible crime on the charging document is the actual shooting. One would think there would be stalking, terrorist threats, racial slurs, something.

I think the PCA originally had a racial slur where it now says "punks" (iirc) and that they are now going with "ill will" toward suspected criminals??? idk, but that's the best I can come up with lol

LambChop
05-04-2012, 03:29 PM
The poll thread got me thinking again about "depraved mind," so I went looking for a case and found this one. This is the current standard in Fla., so this is what it will be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a muder 2 conviction.


An act which is imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind has further been defined as an act “that (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.” Conyers v. State, 569 So.2d 1360, 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Was it depraved mind or depraved indifference? I think there is a difference. jmo

Karmady
05-04-2012, 03:35 PM
Was it depraved mind or depraved indifference? I think there is a difference. jmo

Funny you mention that b/c I initially searched and typed a post about depraved indifference, all for naught lol. The quote I posted is from a Florida murder 2 case and that is the standard. I also recall having posted using the words depraved mind and heart, so I think it is the correct standard.

That said, depraved indifference, according to my now deleted draft post, almost never applies in a one-on-one shooting, stabbing, etc. If you google "depraved indifference" and "example" you should come up with a 2011 NY case (can't remember the name - State v. Parker, maybe) talking about it.

Either way, it's a stretch here, imo.

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 03:38 PM
(1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another

The only thing that GZ did that would be considered “certain to kill or do serious bodily harm” was pull the trigger of the gun.


(2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent

I have seen no evidence of that yet.


(3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

Maybe if the evidence shows that GZ shot TM in the back, or at a distance thay would have something, but barring that I don’t see how they come up with Murder 2.

Good find on the language though. Undoubtedly the jury instructions will read very similarly if it makes it to a jury.

Nova
05-04-2012, 03:41 PM
I never understood how they can conclude anything without both voices to sample. I understand that the results show a certain percentage match, and those results must then be interpreted. I contend that it is possible that the match to TM's voice COULD have been a lower percentage than GMs, but without analysis of TMs voice also, the analysis is majorly flawed.

I agree that would be ideal, but what we have now is how circumstantial evidence usually works:

a. The screams are unlikely to come from GZ.

b. TM was the only other person present and/or likely to be screaming.

c. The screams came from TM.

I certainly expect the defense to contest any test results derived from the screams. But the validity of the science is another (though obviously important) issue.

Karmady
05-04-2012, 03:48 PM
The only thing that GZ did that would be considered “certain to kill or do serious bodily harm” was pull the trigger of the gun.



I have seen no evidence of that yet.



Maybe if the evidence shows that GZ shot TM in the back, or at a distance thay would have something, but barring that I don’t see how they come up with Murder 2.

Good find on the language though. Undoubtedly the jury instructions will read very similarly if it makes it to a jury.

They are "and" clauses, so all of the elements must be satisfied. I don't see anything that meets 2 w/o the hate crime element. jmo

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 04:01 PM
I agree that would be ideal, but what we have now is how circumstantial evidence usually works:

a. The screams are unlikely to come from GZ.

b. TM was the only other person present and/or likely to be screaming.

c. The screams came from TM.

I certainly expect the defense to contest any test results derived from the screams. But the validity of the science is another (though obviously important) issue.

According to the expert:


According to the Sentinel, Owen, a court-qualified expert witness, is an authority on biometric voice analysis -- a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match.

"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen said, according to the Sentinel.

Software called Easy Voice Biometrics was used to compare that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

This would be my question to the expert. (Picture me as O'Mara)

"Ok, Mr. Expert, now you say that you compared GZs scream to his speaking voice, and it returned a 48% match.

Is it possible that the low match could be attributed to the fact that you are using a scream to compare to normal speach?

Is your software designed to compare screams to normal speach?

Do you have tests that show the effectiveness of comparing a scream to normal speach?

Is it possible that comparing TMs normal speaking voice to the recorded scream could also result in a low percentage match?"

As for the expert that only uses his ears for comparison, I can't believe that he has ever testified in court based on what he hears.

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 04:04 PM
They are "and" clauses, so all of the elements must be satisfied. I don't see anything that meets 2 w/o the hate crime element. jmo

Yep, I gotcha.

LambChop
05-04-2012, 04:07 PM
Funny you mention that b/c I initially searched and typed a post about depraved indifference, all for naught lol. The quote I posted is from a Florida murder 2 case and that is the standard. I also recall having posted using the words depraved mind and heart, so I think it is the correct standard.

That said, depraved indifference, according to my now deleted draft post, almost never applies in a one-on-one shooting, stabbing, etc. If you google "depraved indifference" and "example" you should come up with a 2011 NY case (can't remember the name - State v. Parker, maybe) talking about it.

Either way, it's a stretch here, imo.

I think the depraved indifference might come from the fact that GZ pursued TM. And that he knew he was not suppose to have the gun on him if he "decided" to follow TM. Also the indifference could be because GZ had the gun and followed he put the lives of everyone in the condos in danger. How far would that bullet have traveled if they were fighting for the gun and it went off in a different direction than TM? If it shatters on impact could the bullet fragments would have hit a number of people within a home???

I do know my husband said his greatest fear was some do gooder who would decide to take the law into their own hands that would end up costing an innocent person or an officer their life. It was a problem 40 years ago and it's still a problem for LE today. JMO

Karmady
05-04-2012, 04:13 PM
Yep, I gotcha.

I knew you did. I didn't mean for my post to come off as "instructive."

Sorry :)

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 04:19 PM
I knew you did. I didn't mean for my post to come off as "instructive."

Sorry :)

It didn't. I was actually looking for a emotioncon to add but could not find an appropriate one.

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 04:22 PM
O/T - I wish Google would exclude the news search results for sites that require payment for access.

KateNY
05-04-2012, 04:26 PM
The poll thread got me thinking again about "depraved mind," so I went looking for a case and found this one. This is the current standard in Fla., so this is what it will be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a muder 2 conviction.


An act which is imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind has further been defined as an act “that (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.” Conyers v. State, 569 So.2d 1360, 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).


This is tough, since we don't have much to go on at this point..

re BBM

Could 1/3 be related to GZ having a weapon, with 'possible' harm coming not only to TM, but to others in the complex?

2- spite? for the ones that got away

:waitasec:

LambChop
05-04-2012, 04:28 PM
According to the expert:



This would be my question to the expert. (Picture me as O'Mara)

"Ok, Mr. Expert, now you say that you compared GZs scream to his speaking voice, and it returned a 48% match.

Is it possible that the low match could be attributed to the fact that you are using a scream to compare to normal speach?

Is your software designed to compare screams to normal speach?

Do you have tests that show the effectiveness of comparing a scream to normal speach?

Is it possible that comparing TMs normal speaking voice to the recorded scream could also result in a low percentage match?"

As for the expert that only uses his ears for comparison, I can't believe that he has ever testified in court based on what he hears.

I'm no expert but doesn't it have to do with pitch. A 28 year old man usually has a lower pitch to their voice and they did have the 911 call to use. I listened and I hear someone young in fear of their life. Right before the shot goes off. I would not think that GZ would be screaming in such a high pitched voice right before he is pulling that trigger. I would think he'd be yelling stop or I'll shoot. That screaming is someone who knows they are about to die. No juror would ever think anything differently. It's unforgetable. jmo

Karmady
05-04-2012, 04:50 PM
I think the depraved indifference might come from the fact that GZ pursued TM. And that he knew he was not suppose to have the gun on him if he "decided" to follow TM. Also the indifference could be because GZ had the gun and followed he put the lives of everyone in the condos in danger. How far would that bullet have traveled if they were fighting for the gun and it went off in a different direction than TM? If it shatters on impact could the bullet fragments would have hit a number of people within a home???

I do know my husband said his greatest fear was some do gooder who would decide to take the law into their own hands that would end up costing an innocent person or an officer their life. It was a problem 40 years ago and it's still a problem for LE today. JMO

I know what you're saying, but I don't think "depraved indifference" is the right standard under the Florida Murder 2 statute. I do know the term. As I mentioned, that's what my fingers automatically typed until I remembered my earlier posts. Then when I checked Florida law, it was definitely "depraved mind." So I think the standard quoted in the case in my post will be the jury charge. jmo.

Karmady
05-04-2012, 04:53 PM
This is tough, since we don't have much to go on at this point..

re BBM

Could 1/3 be related to GZ having a weapon, with 'possible' harm coming not only to TM, but to others in the complex?

2- spite? for the ones that got away

:waitasec:

I think the real issue will be 2, and I think it would have to be ill-will or spite for the expletives who got away. I think that will be the case the State will be trying to make. I also think they thought they had a better case for 2 until they had to substitute punks for the racial slur. jmo

vlpate
05-04-2012, 05:10 PM
According to the expert:



This would be my question to the expert. (Picture me as O'Mara)

"Ok, Mr. Expert, now you say that you compared GZs scream to his speaking voice, and it returned a 48% match.

Is it possible that the low match could be attributed to the fact that you are using a scream to compare to normal speach?

Is your software designed to compare screams to normal speach?

Do you have tests that show the effectiveness of comparing a scream to normal speach?

Is it possible that comparing TMs normal speaking voice to the recorded scream could also result in a low percentage match?"

As for the expert that only uses his ears for comparison, I can't believe that he has ever testified in court based on what he hears.

Not to mention he said it was the voice of a "young man". GZ is only 28.

vlpate
05-04-2012, 06:12 PM
O/T - I wish Google would exclude the news search results for sites that require payment for access.

I think it's going to be a trend, but thankfully, anything newsworthy is copied over a gazillion sites.

mommakk51
05-04-2012, 06:36 PM
O/T - I wish Google would exclude the news search results for sites that require payment for access.

If you mean like Orlando Sentinel, when the subscription box comes up, I just hit that green X and close it out. It still let's me read the articles. Been seeing that subscription box for 2 months now.. lol.

Phoenixfla
05-04-2012, 08:47 PM
O/T 12 Angry Men on in a few minutes on TCM. Old version with Henry Fonda.

AJ Noiter
05-05-2012, 05:47 AM
I'm no expert but doesn't it have to do with pitch. A 28 year old man usually has a lower pitch to their voice and they did have the 911 call to use. I listened and I hear someone young in fear of their life. Right before the shot goes off. I would not think that GZ would be screaming in such a high pitched voice right before he is pulling that trigger. I would think he'd be yelling stop or I'll shoot. That screaming is someone who knows they are about to die. No juror would ever think anything differently. It's unforgetable. jmo

I, also, am not an expert but I do want to point out that "typically," "usually," and other such words shouldn't have any bearing on this case. Could you imagine the expert's response when Mr. O'Mara questions him on the usage of words "usually" or "typically" ? My experience shows that these words are nit-picked on against witnesses. I imagine the reasonable doubt would come from this question:

Mark O'Mara: Have you examined/tested my client's range of tones?

Also, we have to keep in mind that whoever screamed, whether it be Trayvon or Zimmerman, did so under the impression that their life was in danger. Even if you were to recreate the scene and have everything set up to exacting measures, you would not be able to recreate the fear in that person's mind and voice.

Short: I think the witness(es) testimony on who screamed speaks louder than any expert could attest to.

LambChop
05-05-2012, 07:59 AM
I, also, am not an expert but I do want to point out that "typically," "usually," and other such words shouldn't have any bearing on this case. Could you imagine the expert's response when Mr. O'Mara questions him on the usage of words "usually" or "typically" ? My experience shows that these words are nit-picked on against witnesses. I imagine the reasonable doubt would come from this question:

Mark O'Mara: Have you examined/tested my client's range of tones?

Also, we have to keep in mind that whoever screamed, whether it be Trayvon or Zimmerman, did so under the impression that their life was in danger. Even if you were to recreate the scene and have everything set up to exacting measures, you would not be able to recreate the fear in that person's mind and voice.

Short: I think the witness(es) testimony on who screamed speaks louder than any expert could attest to.

The witness did not say who was screaming. The witness said GZ had called to him for help. The screaming was heard on the 911 calls right before the shot. I do believe GZ called for someone to help him get TM off of him. I also believe once TM saw that gun it was him screaming. Because TM was found lying "face down" I also believe he was trying to get up and away from GZ when he was shot because GZ had no blood on him. jmo

LiveLaughLuv
05-05-2012, 08:41 AM
Austin's mother, Sheryl Brown, said that the trauma from the night has not been limited to what her son witnessed. It also includes the way she says that the police and some media have twisted his account of the night to fit a self-defense theory, to say that a 13-year-old witness has claimed Zimmerman, and not Martin, was screaming for help. Both Austin and his mother are adamant that the teen could not see who was screaming, but they believe now that it was Martin.

Brown said in hindsight she feels the police investigator on the case attempted to lead her son to provide information that he didn't have. The investigator, she said, would nod yes when asking if it was the man in the T-shirt, who turned out to be Zimmerman, and not the one in the hooded sweatshirt, Martin, who was screaming out for help. And while the police have said that they don't have any evidence to refute Zimmerman's claims of self-defense, the investigators had a different story when they visited her family about a week after the shooting, Brown said.

"That investigator said flat out that we don't think it was self-defense," Brown said, recalling the day the police came to interview Austin. "Several times he said, 'I have kids, and I'm going to tell you something that I don't tell many people.' He looked at me and said, 'You have to read between the lines. There's some stereotyping going on.'"

She continued: "He stood here in my family room telling me that this guy [Zimmerman] is not right and it wasn't self-defense and that they have to prove that it wasn't. He was adamant about that. I don't know if that was to make me less uncomfortable or to make us feel that he was on our side."

In recent days, other witnesses have come forward to say that the police attempted to twist their testimony to support Zimmerman's claims of self-defense or ignored them entirely, including two witnesses who joined the Martin family during a press conference on Friday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-killing-yo_n_1355795.html

Justice for Trayvon Martin

AJ Noiter
05-05-2012, 09:48 AM
The witness did not say who was screaming. The witness said GZ had called to him for help. The screaming was heard on the 911 calls right before the shot. I do believe GZ called for someone to help him get TM off of him. I also believe once TM saw that gun it was him screaming. Because TM was found lying "face down" I also believe he was trying to get up and away from GZ when he was shot because GZ had no blood on him. jmo

I could have sworn I watched a video of a man, who refused to be shown on camera the day after the shooting, stating that "the man in red," was screaming. Zimmerman was wearing red. Of course, this is just speculation, the police reports will show what the witness(es) said specifically when they're officially released.

If what your saying is true then I still don't see it being much for the prosecution as per the recent SYG case that was dismissed in Miami where a man chased a burglar for a block before stabbing him to death (I'll cite a source at the end of this reply). From it I get the impression that once SYG is applicable it can't be revoked just because the offender decides to change their course of action. I hope my explanation makes sense, it's a bit difficult to get exactly what I mean in words with this. I know there's nothing specifically in the law itself that says actions must be taken within a given period of time, but being realistic I know that had the man waited 10 minutes after finding the burglar he would probably still be facing charges.

I also want to state that I am not for or against Mr. Zimmerman. I will not decide until discovery is complete and I have reviewed everything I can.

https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your-ground-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense
Note: I do not agree or disagree with the above site's views, it was just the first source that came up in my google search, there are others to choose from if you like.

Edit: I'm trying to find the video I mentioned above, if I do find it I will post a link to it here.

You can see the video here, and from what he's saying you can come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is the one heard yelling because he says that the shot was fired before he was able to get upstairs. That, at least to me, says that the gunshot was a very short time after Zimmerman was yelling for help as per this man's story.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Again, I do not necessarily agree with the above site, I am just linking it for the witness's words only.

elementary
05-05-2012, 12:27 PM
I could have sworn I watched a video of a man, who refused to be shown on camera the day after the shooting, stating that "the man in red," was screaming. Zimmerman was wearing red. Of course, this is just speculation, the police reports will show what the witness(es) said specifically when they're officially released.

If what your saying is true then I still don't see it being much for the prosecution as per the recent SYG case that was dismissed in Miami where a man chased a burglar for a block before stabbing him to death (I'll cite a source at the end of this reply). From it I get the impression that once SYG is applicable it can't be revoked just because the offender decides to change their course of action. I hope my explanation makes sense, it's a bit difficult to get exactly what I mean in words with this. I know there's nothing specifically in the law itself that says actions must be taken within a given period of time, but being realistic I know that had the man waited 10 minutes after finding the burglar he would probably still be facing charges.

I also want to state that I am not for or against Mr. Zimmerman. I will not decide until discovery is complete and I have reviewed everything I can.

https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your-ground-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense
Note: I do not agree or disagree with the above site's views, it was just the first source that came up in my google search, there are others to choose from if you like.

Edit: I'm trying to find the video I mentioned above, if I do find it I will post a link to it here.

You can see the video here, and from what he's saying you can come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is the one heard yelling because he says that the shot was fired before he was able to get upstairs. That, at least to me, says that the gunshot was a very short time after Zimmerman was yelling for help as per this man's story.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Again, I do not necessarily agree with the above site, I am just linking it for the witness's words only.

I am waiting on the discovery that the defence seems in no way to be anxious to see. I am betting the discovery will show GZ for the liar that he is. Meanwhile, MOM handily rakes in the cash. IMO.

AJ Noiter
05-05-2012, 12:37 PM
I am waiting on the discovery that the defence seems in no way to be anxious to see. I am betting the discovery will show GZ for the liar that he is. Meanwhile, MOM handily rakes in the cash. IMO.

Kind of a red herring, but neither Zimmerman nor O'Mara have access to that fund directly. Zimmerman was given an amount of 30% of the total amount transferred from paypal to live on for "the next few months."

You can find more on it here: http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/15-details-regarding-the-george-zimmerman-defense-fund

Also, as stated in my previous post, I haven't decided which direction to go either, and won't until discovery allows me to view all of the information. I suspect that to be soon, as I think Mr. O'Mara continued discovery today or late yesterday. I say that because the post informing people why he was delaying has been removed from the site mentioned above. To add to this topic specifically, I'd say I agree that the witness information needed to be redacted before going to the public.

vlpate
05-05-2012, 03:40 PM
I could have sworn I watched a video of a man, who refused to be shown on camera the day after the shooting, stating that "the man in red," was screaming. Zimmerman was wearing red. Of course, this is just speculation, the police reports will show what the witness(es) said specifically when they're officially released.
<respectfully snipped>
You can see the video here, and from what he's saying you can come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is the one heard yelling because he says that the shot was fired before he was able to get upstairs. That, at least to me, says that the gunshot was a very short time after Zimmerman was yelling for help as per this man's story.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Again, I do not necessarily agree with the above site, I am just linking it for the witness's words only.

There is also the 13 yr. old boy who was walking his dog that said he saw someone in red on the ground screaming, alone. His mother says the police tried to trip him up on the color of the shirt, but as you can clearly see, he says the same thing, that the shirt was red, in his own words even after his mother makes her statement to media.

March 15 (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-15/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315_1_robert-zimmerman-letter-unarmed-black-teenager)
"That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old <modsnip> stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.

"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "

It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.

March 17 - Mother says Police twisted her son's words (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-killing-yo_n_1355795.html)
<modsnip> mother, Sheryl Brown, said that the trauma from the night has not been limited to what her son witnessed. It also includes the way she says that the police and some media have twisted his account of the night to fit a self-defense theory, to say that a 13-year-old witness has claimed Zimmerman, and not Martin, was screaming for help. Both Austin and his mother are adamant that the teen could not see who was screaming, but they believe now that it was Martin.

And yet, 10 days later, he tells Guttman the same thing:
Brown, eyewitness March 27 Interview

If he really didn't see anything that night, why did he continue to repeat the same story?
.

AJ Noiter
05-05-2012, 04:21 PM
There is also the 13 yr. old boy who was walking his dog that said he saw someone in red on the ground screaming, alone. His mother says the police tried to trip him up on the color of the shirt, but as you can clearly see, he says the same thing, that the shirt was red, in his own words even after his mother makes her statement to media.

<snipped for length>

If he really didn't see anything that night, why did he continue to repeat the same story?
.

I was not aware of this, shows what I get for distrusting media to the point of not even looking at it. Thanks!

Nova
05-05-2012, 05:17 PM
Was it depraved mind or depraved indifference? I think there is a difference. jmo

I believe they are the same. "Depraved indifference" is the term in California (among some other states), so we hear it a lot in TV shows and films. But it means the same thing: that the killer committed an act s/he should have known was likely to cause the death of another (but without forming a conscious intent to cause that death). Personally, I think the word "indifference" is helpful to laypeople, but maybe that's just me.

Neither term has anything to do with "depravity" as we use it outside the courtroom, as I'm sure you know.

CORRECTION: the requirement in California is actually phrased "malice aforethought", but means the same thing. I can tell you from experience that the legal term "malice" is really a stumbling block for some jurors.

According to the following site, "depraved indifference" is New York's way of expressing the same concept:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

Nova
05-05-2012, 05:21 PM
Funny you mention that b/c I initially searched and typed a post about depraved indifference, all for naught lol. The quote I posted is from a Florida murder 2 case and that is the standard. I also recall having posted using the words depraved mind and heart, so I think it is the correct standard.

That said, depraved indifference, according to my now deleted draft post, almost never applies in a one-on-one shooting, stabbing, etc. If you google "depraved indifference" and "example" you should come up with a 2011 NY case (can't remember the name - State v. Parker, maybe) talking about it.

Either way, it's a stretch here, imo.

Karmady, I was a juror in a 2nd degree murder case involving a one-on-one stabbing. If such charges are rare, I think it's because most prosecutors figure they can prove intent when somebody pulls a trigger or stabs with a knife, so they shoot for 1st degree.

But in "my" trial, the facts were similar to the Zimmerman/Martin case in that the killing occurred in the midst of a chaotic argument. I think (IANAL) the law recognizes that someone might use a weapon during such chaos without actually forming an intent to kill.

Nova
05-05-2012, 05:26 PM
According to the expert:



This would be my question to the expert. (Picture me as O'Mara)

"Ok, Mr. Expert, now you say that you compared GZs scream to his speaking voice, and it returned a 48% match.

Is it possible that the low match could be attributed to the fact that you are using a scream to compare to normal speach?

Is your software designed to compare screams to normal speach?

Do you have tests that show the effectiveness of comparing a scream to normal speach?

Is it possible that comparing TMs normal speaking voice to the recorded scream could also result in a low percentage match?"

As for the expert that only uses his ears for comparison, I can't believe that he has ever testified in court based on what he hears.

Yes, I know all that and I don't see how it changes what I posted.

My point was that either (a) there are tapes of TM's voice and comparisons will be tested; or (b) the prosecution will argue that since GZ does not provide a match, a reasonable person much conclude that TM was screaming. (There are witnesses that say only two people were at that spot.)

Of course, the defense will almost certainly have to attack the tests, since they don't help GZ' credibility.

Nova
05-05-2012, 05:28 PM
This is tough, since we don't have much to go on at this point..

re BBM

Could 1/3 be related to GZ having a weapon, with 'possible' harm coming not only to TM, but to others in the complex?

2- spite? for the ones that got away

:waitasec:

I don't think part 2 is such a hurdle. Yes, the DA could argue racial animus on GZ's part, but it would be a lot easier to argue that GZ was angry that "the a--holes always get away." Easier because they have GZ' own words on tape.

vlpate
05-05-2012, 05:30 PM
Well we can respectfully agree to disagree. A normal civilized person would have opened his car window and ask Trayvon why he was in that community and that would have been the end of it.
I don't know that I would open my window to someone staring at me and circling my car to ask them if they belong there. Someone who belongs there would be on their way to the house.


A silent not uniformed stranger in an unmarked car is scary IMO to a 17 year old kid.
Probably 99% of the people and cars he saw walking the mile to, and the mile back from the store fit that description, so why circle GZ's?

But GZ was hell bent to ensnare himself an imaginary burglar and look good to LE.
He was probably hoping to catch Trayvon in a breaking and entering act. Informing Trayvon that he was a NW guy would throw a monkey wrench in that plan. All IMO.,
There's no history to support this. In the calls he made to LE to report suspicious males within the community he never once tried to take the law into his own hands...in fact, he wanted to remain anonymous.

JMO

Brought over from injury thread.

vlpate
05-05-2012, 05:31 PM
I don't think part 2 is such a hurdle. Yes, the DA could argue racial animus on GZ's part, but it would be a lot easier to argue that GZ was angry that "the a--holes always get away." Easier because they have GZ' own words on tape.

IIRC, and I'd have to pull it up, but didn't Gilbreath say he was "criminally" profiling when questioned by MO'M @ bond hearing?

Nova
05-05-2012, 05:40 PM
IIRC, and I'd have to pull it up, but didn't Gilbreath say he was "criminally" profiling when questioned by MO'M @ bond hearing?

IIRC, the probable cause affidavit alleges GZ "profiled" TM, but doesn't use the word "criminal".

Profiling per se isn't illegal for a private citizen, so we have all been speculating as to where the SA is going with that claim. Frankly, I don't know.

LambChop
05-05-2012, 05:40 PM
I believe they are the same. "Depraved indifference" is the term in California (among some other states), so we hear it a lot in TV shows and films. But it means the same thing: that the killer committed an act s/he should have known was likely to cause the death of another (but without forming a conscious intent to cause that death). Personally, I think the word "indifference" is helpful to laypeople, but maybe that's just me.

Neither term has anything to do with "depravity" as we use it outside the courtroom, as I'm sure you know.

CORRECTION: the requirement in California is actually phrased "malice aforethought", but means the same thing. I can tell you from experience that the legal term "malice" is really a stumbling block for some jurors.

According to the following site, "depraved indifference" is New York's way of expressing the same concept:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

I was thinking in terms of the difference between "mind" and "indifference". Mind being something long term and indifference being a spur of the moment type of thing. I really think he got caught up in the moment of "not letting this one get away" and just used extremely poor judgment. jmo

LambChop
05-05-2012, 05:44 PM
I don't know that I would open my window to someone staring at me and circling my car to ask them if they belong there. Someone who belongs there would be on their way to the house.


Probably 99% of the people and cars he saw walking the mile to, and the mile back from the store fit that description, so why circle GZ's?

There's no history to support this. In the calls he made to LE to report suspicious males within the community he never once tried to take the law into his own hands...in fact, he wanted to remain anonymous.

JMO

Brought over from injury thread.

In 2005 according to the police report of 911 calls placed by GZ he was following a car, pursuing them on the highway trying to catch up with them while on the phone with LE. 46 calls to 911 with his name is not anonymous. lol

vlpate
05-05-2012, 05:52 PM
I was not aware of this, shows what I get for distrusting media to the point of not even looking at it. Thanks!

You probably have a life lol. I actually only found this a few days ago and then back-tracked to the mother's statement. Veddy interesting....

i.b.nora
05-05-2012, 06:01 PM
snipped
And yet, 10 days later, he tells Guttman the same thing:

Who exactly made the video? I understand it was posted by Todd Feinburg, a WRKO talk radio host in Boston. Its on his blog as well, and there is no further identification of where it came from.
So, where was that video made and where was it originally televised, and who was the interviewer? And why are videos of minors being posted on the internet, anyhow? What legitimate news agency would do that?

vlpate
05-05-2012, 06:05 PM
I was looking back at the bond hearing stills, had a thought - look at the difference in height between MO'M and GZ.

MO'M at least 6' tall
TM was 6'3" 160
GZ is 5'8" 185

IMO, if someone that tall was on top of you, the difference of 15 lbs and 7 inches would put you at quite the disadvantage. It would also likely make GZ think TM was older than 17 - that's an unusual height for a teenager, IMO.

So, imagine MO'M 3 inches taller...

http://www.thegrio.com/assets_c/2012/04/omara-meets-zimmerman-thumb-400xauto-33968.jpg

Phoenixfla
05-05-2012, 06:05 PM
There is also the 13 yr. old boy who was walking his dog that said he saw someone in red on the ground screaming, alone. His mother says the police tried to trip him up on the color of the shirt, but as you can clearly see, he says the same thing, that the shirt was red, in his own words even after his mother makes her statement to media.

March 15 (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-15/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315_1_robert-zimmerman-letter-unarmed-black-teenager)
"That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old <modsnip> stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.

"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "

It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt

LambChop
05-05-2012, 06:07 PM
I was not aware of this, shows what I get for distrusting media to the point of not even looking at it. Thanks!

I don't think there are many who feel TM was not on top. And I think we will find from balistics that he was. The issue is who started the fight. Just because TM was on top is not proof he started the fight. There is this saying down south....."someone has to be the down dog". I feel GZ clearly did not want TM to get away. GZ's car was right at the cut through and any attempt for TM to leave and go home GZ viewed as TM trying to "escape". My guess is TM had no idea what GZ was up to since he never identified himself when he had a full opportunity to do so. I think GZ has issues with seeing himself above everyone else so there is no need to explain his actions to anyone he confronts, you should know and answer his questions post-haste.

Think about it. You are walking home in the rain. Someone is watching you from their car on the phone. You want to run but you're not sure what this guy is up to. You finally lose him as you walk down the cut through and onto the sidewalk. All of a sudden he is there again only on foot so you know he is following you and you ask the most reasonable question...."why are you following me?" Does he answer by telling you he is with the NWP? No, he proceeds to ask you a question...."what are you doing here?" and we are assuming he's walking towards TM because the GF said she heard a scuffling noise and the phone went dead. Could it be that TM turned to run and that's why there was the scuffling noise. A witness said she saw two figures running past her house before the fight towards the location where the body was found.

It is much more believable that GZ tried to detain TM than TM jumped GZ out of spite. The phone call with his gf would back that up and the inconsistent statements from GZ will probably back that up as well. We just have to wait and see. jmo

vlpate
05-05-2012, 06:21 PM
Your link to a wikipedia entry is to someone named Mark O'Meara, a professional golfer.

Yep, you are right, I was looking for another link. Obviously, he is at least 6' - 6'2" tall, 5-6 inches taller than Zimmerman. It's just a visual, so the point still stand, GZ would be at a disadvantage if he had tried to detain TM. JMO

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20586892,00.html

Above article from People - Trayvon 6'3"

vlpate
05-05-2012, 06:30 PM
Who exactly made the video? I understand it was posted by Todd Feinburg, a WRKO talk radio host in Boston. Its on his blog as well, and there is no further identification of where it came from.
So, where was that video made and where was it originally televised, and who was the interviewer? And why are videos of minors being posted on the internet, anyhow? What legitimate news agency would do that?

I can't answer all your questions, but the interviewer is Matt Guttman, as I wrote. The child has been in two other MSM interviews, which can be found on youtube. No one is sleuthing this minor. If you believe it is posted against TOS, please alert. TIA

vlpate
05-05-2012, 06:42 PM
Wow, he is a professional golfer too? He IS talented.

lol shup. He probably is, aren't all lawyers? I can't really judge height, but he looks to be at least 6' - 6'1"....how tall is the human head?

I just read that the average human head can be anywhere from 17 to 22 cent, which is 7 - 9 inches. So maybe MO'M is 6'3" as well. Women can't determine length in inches, like men can't ask or directions, well known fact :)

i.b.nora
05-05-2012, 07:00 PM
I can't answer all your questions, but the interviewer is Matt Guttman, as I wrote. The child has been in two other MSM interviews, which can be found on youtube. No one is sleuthing this minor. If you believe it is posted against TOS, please alert. TIA
Well, actually, what you wrote was, "And yet, 10 days later, he tells Guttman the same thing:" so, all I was asking was who was Guttman? Now, I see that Matt Guttman is a reporter for ABC. I personally, have not seen any of the Good Morning America broadcasts regarding this case, and I have not been previously familiar with Matt Guttman. Thank you for answering my question.

As far as the rest goes, I was questioning why MSM or whoever that video belongs to was interviewing and identifyiing minors. And, sometimes when I see minors identified here at WS, I do alert on the post/s.

vlpate
05-05-2012, 07:00 PM
I don't think there are many who feel TM was not on top. And I think we will find from balistics that he was. The issue is who started the fight. Just because TM was on top is not proof he started the fight. There is this saying down south....."someone has to be the down dog". I feel GZ clearly did not want TM to get away. GZ's car was right at the cut through and any attempt for TM to leave and go home GZ viewed as TM trying to "escape". My guess is TM had no idea what GZ was up to since he never identified himself when he had a full opportunity to do so. I think GZ has issues with seeing himself above everyone else so there is no need to explain his actions to anyone he confronts, you should know and answer his questions post-haste.

Think about it. You are walking home in the rain. Someone is watching you from their car on the phone. You want to run but you're not sure what this guy is up to. You finally lose him as you walk down the cut through and onto the sidewalk. All of a sudden he is there again only on foot so you know he is following you and you ask the most reasonable question...."why are you following me?" Does he answer by telling you he is with the NWP? No, he proceeds to ask you a question...."what are you doing here?" and we are assuming he's walking towards TM because the GF said she heard a scuffling noise and the phone went dead. Could it be that TM turned to run and that's why there was the scuffling noise. A witness said she saw two figures running past her house before the fight towards the location where the body was found.

It is much more believable that GZ tried to detain TM than TM jumped GZ out of spite. The phone call with his gf would back that up and the inconsistent statements from GZ will probably back that up as well. We just have to wait and see. jmo

You make great points, but I have a problem with timing. If TM took off running, and was not in sight for two minutes, then if GZ took off running after hanging up the phone, why did they end up where TM's body was found? He couldn't have followed him far and TM couldn't have run far. How does one resolve this?

LambChop
05-05-2012, 07:13 PM
You make great points, but I have a problem with timing. If TM took off running, and was not in sight for two minutes, then if GZ took off running after hanging up the phone, why did they end up where TM's body was found? He couldn't have followed him far and TM couldn't have run far. How does one resolve this?

Did you see Papa's chart? I guess we will soon know. jmo

vlpate
05-05-2012, 07:34 PM
Well, actually, what you wrote was, "And yet, 10 days later, he tells Guttman the same thing:" so, all I was asking was who was Guttman? Now, I see that Matt Guttman is a reporter for ABC. I personally, have not seen any of the Good Morning America broadcasts regarding this case, and I have not been previously familiar with Matt Guttman. Thank you for answering my question.

As far as the rest goes, I was questioning why MSM or whoever that video belongs to was interviewing and identifyiing minors. And, sometimes when I see minors identified here at WS, I do alert on the post/s.

Right, I was quoting and didn't actually write the name out myself, I see now that we should redact the name from the MSM article. In this case, I believe his name is said in the report. I believe the mother's consent is all that is needed for him to be identified - in the case of the girlfriend, the mother did not want her identified. I can't post the mother's interview with her lawyer because the full name of the son shows up, but you can look it up if interested. She is with her lawyer and she says the police didn't call to interview her on, and when they did, she put them off for three days - she has her lawyer with her during the interview. :waitasec:

ETA: Had to take that one off too, full name displayed, grrrrr

It's odd that I can't find the Matt Guttman interview anywhere else, maybe it was taken earlier that 2/27. But where did it go??

vlpate
05-05-2012, 07:36 PM
Did you see Papa's chart? I guess we will soon know. jmo

Even going by his charts, and him not knowing where the truck was exactly when GZ got out, it's still 70 yards from TM's home.

LambChop
05-05-2012, 07:38 PM
Even going by his charts, and him not knowing where the truck was exactly when GZ got out, it's still 70 yards from TM's home.

Didn't he said he was at the cut through?

Karmady
05-05-2012, 07:40 PM
Karmady, I was a juror in a 2nd degree murder case involving a one-on-one stabbing. If such charges are rare, I think it's because most prosecutors figure they can prove intent when somebody pulls a trigger or stabs with a knife, so they shoot for 1st degree.

But in "my" trial, the facts were similar to the Zimmerman/Martin case in that the killing occurred in the midst of a chaotic argument. I think (IANAL) the law recognizes that someone might use a weapon during such chaos without actually forming an intent to kill.

grr...post lost in the ether.

I think what I said is that we are all correct lol

The NY case I was thinking of was People v. Gonzalez (don't ask how I got State v. Parker!). I linked it. Bottom line, without getting too mucked up in the subtleties, I think the standards are similar, if not identical. But since there was a Fla. case directly on point, I went with that case instead of the NY case.

I can't remember right at the moment whether it is Gonzalez or an even more recent NY case that points out that intentional murder (including intentional murder 2 - there is such a charge in NY, apparently) and depraved indifference murder 2 are mutually exclusive in NY. So, if this case were there, and George is found to have formed an intent to kill at any point prior to shooting, he would walk since he would not be guilty of depraved indifference and has not been charged with a specific intent crime.

As they say, "it's complicated" :)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-court-of-appeals/1309102.html

Karmady
05-05-2012, 08:48 PM
Interesting article from the media thread for those of you who, like me, may not usually check up there. Tracy Martin and his current estranged wife give more details about themselves, their relationships with Trayvon and what Tracy thought happened the night of the shooting.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-05/news/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-father-20120505_1_martin-family-shooting-death-miami-gardens

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 03:47 AM
Interesting article from the media thread for those of you who, like me, may not usually check up there. Tracy Martin and his current estranged wife give more details about themselves, their relationships with Trayvon and what Tracy thought happened the night of the shooting.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-05/news/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-father-20120505_1_martin-family-shooting-death-miami-gardens

It's very telling when an EX, has nothing but good things to say. Everyone speaks so highly of the Martin's. I really hope the defense doesn't "go there".

Nova
05-06-2012, 04:16 AM
I was thinking in terms of the difference between "mind" and "indifference". Mind being something long term and indifference being a spur of the moment type of thing. I really think he got caught up in the moment of "not letting this one get away" and just used extremely poor judgment. jmo

But "depraved mind" is what Florida calls New York's concept of "depraved indifference" and California's concept of "criminal malice". They all mean the same thing. They are all measured in the instant the killing occurs and none of them requires prior contemplation.

When you talk about long term consideration or (as California puts) "serious consideration", then you get into the area of premeditation and 1st degree murder.

Nova
05-06-2012, 04:22 AM
grr...post lost in the ether.

I think what I said is that we are all correct lol

The NY case I was thinking of was People v. Gonzalez (don't ask how I got State v. Parker!). I linked it. Bottom line, without getting too mucked up in the subtleties, I think the standards are similar, if not identical. But since there was a Fla. case directly on point, I went with that case instead of the NY case.

I can't remember right at the moment whether it is Gonzalez or an even more recent NY case that points out that intentional murder (including intentional murder 2 - there is such a charge in NY, apparently) and depraved indifference murder 2 are mutually exclusive in NY. So, if this case were there, and George is found to have formed an intent to kill at any point prior to shooting, he would walk since he would not be guilty of depraved indifference and has not been charged with a specific intent crime.

As they say, "it's complicated" :)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-court-of-appeals/1309102.html

My impressions of New York law come largely from Law & Order, so perhaps I should keep them to myself. (There are numerous episodes that talk about an intentional murder being second degree. First degree seems reserved for special cases such as the murder of police officers.)

In any event, the intent of my post was merely to further illustrate what you were saying. I wasn't disagreeing with you.

Phoenixfla
05-06-2012, 11:05 AM
In 2005 according to the police report of 911 calls placed by GZ he was following a car, pursuing them on the highway trying to catch up with them while on the phone with LE. 46 calls to 911 with his name is not anonymous. lol

What did he do after following him? Did he try to detain the guy? Did he try to make a citizen's arrest?

tpgks
05-06-2012, 11:14 AM
Interesting article from the media thread for those of you who, like me, may not usually check up there. Tracy Martin and his current estranged wife give more details about themselves, their relationships with Trayvon and what Tracy thought happened the night of the shooting.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-05/news/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-father-20120505_1_martin-family-shooting-death-miami-gardens

Wait a minute. So Tracy and his ex-wife (Stanley) "split up just weeks before Trayvon's death." But Tracy and Brandy were already "engaged" at the time of the shooting?

"Fiance" reference http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/030712-Father-of-teen-shot-in-Sanford-to-speak

I also find it strange that there is no mention what-so-ever of Trayvon's "brother" who he was at home with watching the All-Star game.

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 11:15 AM
What did he do after following him? Did he try to detain the guy? Did he try to make a citizen's arrest?

IDK. Do you know if the guy he was chasing that time was a defenseless black teenager?

Phoenixfla
05-06-2012, 11:22 AM
It's very telling when an EX, has nothing but good things to say. Everyone speaks so highly of the Martin's. I really hope the defense doesn't "go there".

Since the prosecution has conceded that they don't know who started the physical confrontation, I doubt the defense would need to.

That is still the most important point to me. Someone decided to take it from a verbal altercation to a physical altercation. That is what I want to see evidence of.

Phoenixfla
05-06-2012, 11:24 AM
Wait a minute. So Tracy and his ex-wife (Stanley) "split up just weeks before Trayvon's death." But Tracy and Brandy were already "engaged" at the time of the shooting?

"Fiance" reference http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/030712-Father-of-teen-shot-in-Sanford-to-speak

I also find it strange that there is no mention what-so-ever of Trayvon's "brother" who he was at home with watching the All-Star game.

I'm not judging him, but that is a very short time.

LambChop
05-06-2012, 11:32 AM
Wait a minute. So Tracy and his ex-wife (Stanley) "split up just weeks before Trayvon's death." But Tracy and Brandy were already "engaged" at the time of the shooting?

"Fiance" reference http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/030712-Father-of-teen-shot-in-Sanford-to-speak

I also find it strange that there is no mention what-so-ever of Trayvon's "brother" who he was at home with watching the All-Star game.

It says ex-wife. Their divorce may have been final a couple of weeks before. How long does it take to get divorced in Florida??? jmo

LambChop
05-06-2012, 11:36 AM
IDK. Do you know if the guy he was chasing that time was a defenseless black teenager?

And what was GZ's intent in the first place when he decided to follow TM. He knew LE was on the way so why follow TM. Did he think LE was not capable of doing their job so he had to intervene??? What was the reasoning for GZ to follow someone he claims he was in fear of?????

In the bond hearing GZ admitted he did not know whether or not TM had a gun so why would he follow him? jmo

Phoenixfla
05-06-2012, 12:10 PM
And what was GZ's intent in the first place when he decided to follow TM. He knew LE was on the way so why follow TM. Did he think LE was not capable of doing their job so he had to intervene??? What was the reasoning for GZ to follow someone he claims he was in fear of?????

In the bond hearing GZ admitted he did not know whether or not TM had a gun so why would he follow him? jmo

I think we have this argument at least once every few days. Lol. I would speculate that his intent was to continue to observe him at a safe distance so he could report to the officer which way he went.

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 12:18 PM
I think we have this argument at least once every few days. Lol. I would speculate that his intent was to continue to observe him at a safe distance so he could report to the officer which way he went.

But he didn't do that, IMO.

What's that old saying? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Not that I think GZ had 'good' intentions.

JMO

katydid23
05-06-2012, 03:33 PM
Wait a minute. So Tracy and his ex-wife (Stanley) "split up just weeks before Trayvon's death." But Tracy and Brandy were already "engaged" at the time of the shooting?

"Fiance" reference http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/030712-Father-of-teen-shot-in-Sanford-to-speak

I also find it strange that there is no mention what-so-ever of Trayvon's "brother" who he was at home with watching the All-Star game.

I find that interesting because it tells me that TM was not familiar with the area. I think it might make him look more 'suspicious' than the average resident because he did not know his way around the complex and may have been lost. All of the condos look alike and it is probably hard to get your bearings.

katydid23
05-06-2012, 03:36 PM
But he didn't do that, IMO.

What's that old saying? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Not that I think GZ had 'good' intentions.

JMO

I think his intentions were good. I think he mistakenly believed that TM was one of the young black males that had been breaking into the condos and had been stealing from the patios.

He was WRONG, and he should not have left his car that night. But that does not mean his intentions were bad, just very very badly carried out. JMO

LambChop
05-06-2012, 03:43 PM
I think his intentions were good. I think he mistakenly believed that TM was one of the young black males that had been breaking into the condos and had been stealing from the patios.

He was WRONG, and he should not have left his car that night. But that does not mean his intentions were bad, just very very badly carried out. JMO

What ever would TM be able to steal from a patio? He had no car. He didn't even have pockets other than his hoodie. That is what makes this all so tragic. Had GZ used his common sense he would have realized this young man had nothing to carry anything away with. jmo

LambChop
05-06-2012, 03:48 PM
I think we have this argument at least once every few days. Lol. I would speculate that his intent was to continue to observe him at a safe distance so he could report to the officer which way he went.

But, again, he had no authority to do so. None, zip. Advice and directions from the NWP and LE were ignored. Did GZ think that this advice given was just to be ignored? We have police departments to handle these types of matters for the specific reason of keeping people safe. Yet GZ had no regard for LE and pretty much did what he wanted with tragic results. jmo

Elley Mae
05-06-2012, 03:52 PM
What ever would TM be able to steal from a patio? He had no car. He didn't even have pockets other than his hoodie. That is what makes this all so tragic. Had GZ used his common sense he would have realized this young man had nothing to carry anything away with. jmo

A few months back the two individuals that I saw walking down the street (rural neighborhood) at 3am (one entered my property and opened my vehicle) didn't have vehicle that I saw. When we scared them off they took off running.

katydid23
05-06-2012, 03:54 PM
What ever would TM be able to steal from a patio? He had no car. He didn't even have pockets other than his hoodie. That is what makes this all so tragic. Had GZ used his common sense he would have realized this young man had nothing to carry anything away with. jmo

I NEVER said TM was going to steal anything.

But how would GZ KNOW if TM had a car in the lot anywhere?

LambChop
05-06-2012, 03:58 PM
I NEVER said TM was going to steal anything.

But how would GZ KNOW if TM had a car in the lot anywhere?

Because he followed TM all that way walking. Common sense would tell you if you plan to steal something drive there, don't park your car at 7-11. Electronics are heavy. jmo

katydid23
05-06-2012, 03:59 PM
The theft ring that was working in our sub division used one car and had several teens out running around separately. They used those mobile radio things to keep in touch.
And it was a resident who called in after being suspicious of a teen walking around, listening to their i-pod.
This group had been breaking into our cars for months.

katydid23
05-06-2012, 03:59 PM
Because he followed TM all that way walking. Common sense would tell you if you plan to steal something drive there, don't park your car at 7-11. Electronics are heavy. jmo

He followed TM from the 7/11?

LambChop
05-06-2012, 04:01 PM
A few months back the two individuals that I saw walking down the street (rural neighborhood) at 3am (one entered my property and opened my vehicle) didn't have vehicle that I saw. When we scared them off they took off running.

My guess is they were after your vehicle. TM was walking down a sidewalk in the back of the condos. Could it be any clearer he was walking home? Having a suspicious mind should not stop you from using your common sense. GZ did not do that. jmo

LambChop
05-06-2012, 04:02 PM
He followed TM from the 7/11?

No, LOL. I was just using 7-11 as a location since I don't think parking is allowed on the main roads in that area. lol

LambChop
05-06-2012, 04:10 PM
The theft ring that was working in our sub division used one car and had several teens out running around separately. They used those mobile radio things to keep in touch.
And it was a resident who called in after being suspicious of a teen walking around, listening to their i-pod.
This group had been breaking into our cars for months.

This development has garages and TM wasn't looking in cars he was headed towards the back sidewalks that are used to get to the condos. TM was NOT doing anything suspicious. GZ overreacted to nothing more than a young teen walking back home from the store. GZ took nothing and created an incident when there was none. He had nothing to work off of other than his own fear and imagination. People have a right to feel safe walking down the street. If GZ wanted to call LE that was his right. What he did afterwards was create an incident where there was none and the end result is that a young man is dead because someone did something irreponsible. jmo

vlpate
05-06-2012, 04:17 PM
But, again, he had no authority to do so. None, zip. Advice and directions from the NWP and LE were ignored. Did GZ think that this advice given was just to be ignored? We have police departments to handle these types of matters for the specific reason of keeping people safe. Yet GZ had no regard for LE and pretty much did what he wanted with tragic results. jmo
When he was told to stop following, he stopped following, if he had continued to follow him he would have been further than he was from where he first saw Trayvon running. He doesn't need authority to watch a suspicious person in his neighborhood, nobody does.

I think "following" is the wrong word anyway, he was watching to see where TM was going. JMO

iluvmua
05-06-2012, 04:19 PM
Everybody just keeps on staying that he defined orders from the 911 operator and kept on following TM when he did stop.

iluvmua
05-06-2012, 04:20 PM
When he was told to stop following, he stopped following, if he had continued to follow him he would have been further than he was from where he first saw Trayvon running. He doesn't need authority to watch a suspicious person in his neighborhood, nobody does.

I think "following" is the wrong word anyway, he was watching to see where TM was going. JMO

That's what I got out of it. (911 call)

rotterdam
05-06-2012, 04:25 PM
A few months back the two individuals that I saw walking down the street (rural neighborhood) at 3am (one entered my property and opened my vehicle) didn't have vehicle that I saw. When we scared them off they took off running.

Well those two individuals were lucky, indeed, it was at your place.
If that would have happened at GZ's place, they could be pushing up daisies.

Phoenixfla
05-06-2012, 04:28 PM
Because he followed TM all that way walking. Common sense would tell you if you plan to steal something drive there, don't park your car at 7-11. Electronics are heavy. jmo

Electronics are heavy...jewelry not so much. When my parents were broken in a few years ago the burglar took their pillow cases and filled them with jewelry, coins and crystal. Came and left on foot.

rotterdam
05-06-2012, 04:42 PM
Electronics are heavy...jewelry not so much. When my parents were broken in a few years ago the burglar took their pillow cases and filled them with jewelry, coins and crystal. Came and left on foot.

You are right . Many burglars do not park a strange car next to the house they are burglarizing, since neighbors might get suspicious. I have been robbed a couple of times. Electronics were left alone. Money, gold, sterling silver, guns and cameras seems to be top choice and in that order. I finally invested in big old antique York safe. Not the kind that two folks can carry out but needs a fork lift truck. It was funny and pathetic to see ball point hammer marks on the door after a robbery again. They would have to blast their way in.:floorlaugh:

Elley Mae
05-06-2012, 04:45 PM
Well those two individuals were lucky, indeed, it was at your place.
If that would have happened at GZ's place, they could be pushing daisies.

If I lived in a state that would have allowed me to defend my property I would probably have defended it. So I did the next thing available and waited 15 minutes for the police.

AJ Noiter
05-06-2012, 04:49 PM
You are right . Many burglars do not park a strange car next to the house they are burglarizing, since neighbors might get suspicious. I have been robbed a couple of times. Electronics were left alone. Money, gold, sterling silver, guns and cameras seems to be top choice. I finally invested in big old antique York safe. Not the kind that two folks can carry out but needs a fork lift truck. It was funny and pathetic to see ball point hammer marks on the door after a robbery again. They would have to blast their way in.:floorlaugh:

On a lot of 'em even a blast wouldn't let them in. I have one for my rifles. Thankfully the only time I've had anything stolen was the stock radio (??? I still don't understand this.. the STOCK radio from a Chevy Cavalier?) from the first car I ever owned.

rotterdam
05-06-2012, 04:51 PM
If I lived in a state that would have allowed me to defend my property I would probably have defended it. So I did the next thing available and waited 15 minutes for the police.

You would have actually shot them if you did think you could get away with it????

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 04:52 PM
When he was told to stop following, he stopped following, if he had continued to follow him he would have been further than he was from where he first saw Trayvon running. He doesn't need authority to watch a suspicious person in his neighborhood, nobody does.

I think "following" is the wrong word anyway, he was watching to see where TM was going. JMO

Unless he doubled back to catch or trap Trayvon.

I think following is the wrong word too. Pursue is more accurate. IMO.

pursue - Google Search

Omachka
05-06-2012, 05:03 PM
Unless he doubled back to catch or trap Trayvon.

I think following is the wrong word too. Pursue is more accurate. IMO.

pursue - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=pursue&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENN_en___US457&q=pursue&gs_upl=0l0l0l5371lllllllllll0&aqi=g5#hl=en&rlz=1T4LENN_en___US457&q=pursue&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=heOmT6n1C4S3twf-mbneBA&ved=0CHIQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=6b4b1bdf32659c2&biw=1017&bih=434)

ITA. I think GZ went down the outer sidewalk while TM was walking on the sidewalk in between the units. That was why TM said to his girlfriend that he had lost GZ. Once TM felt safe, he slowed from his faster pace to a stroll as he had a conversation with his girlfriend on the phone. IMO GZ went around the outside and tried to head TM off. This scenario would have taken a bit longer than if GZ had "followed" TM and would also account for TM telling his girlfriend he had lost him. This is just speculation on my part but it fits the timeline I think.

LambChop
05-06-2012, 05:25 PM
When he was told to stop following, he stopped following, if he had continued to follow him he would have been further than he was from where he first saw Trayvon running. He doesn't need authority to watch a suspicious person in his neighborhood, nobody does.

I think "following" is the wrong word anyway, he was watching to see where TM was going. JMO

No, following is the correct term when you get out of your car to walk towards and watch someone. When they disappear around a corner and you are trying to find them that is following them. Once the person starts to run, you are pursuing them. Once you start to run after them you are chasing them. TM was not a suspect. He had every right to be within that community. TM had every right to walk home without someone following him. GZ did not need to follow him because TM was right there in front of the clubhouse when GZ called LE and never once did GZ ask TM who he was and where he was staying. TM was not a criminal and regardless of what GZ thought, it did not make it so. jmo

LambChop
05-06-2012, 05:32 PM
Electronics are heavy...jewelry not so much. When my parents were broken in a few years ago the burglar took their pillow cases and filled them with jewelry, coins and crystal. Came and left on foot.

Asking for trouble. Electronics you don't lock up but jewelry, coins, even my crystal is locked up. I don't see the point of putting fine crystal in a pillow case, though. Why bother stealing it??? jmo

LambChop
05-06-2012, 05:36 PM
Everybody just keeps on staying that he defined orders from the 911 operator and kept on following TM when he did stop.

That is because on the timeline he did not stop and obviously did not go back to his truck because he found TM. According to Papa's chart he was still on the phone with the dispatcher when he reached the point of the cross walks and still had another minute on the phone with them before he would have hung up. Plenty of time to get back to his truck.....What was he doing????? jmo

rotterdam
05-06-2012, 05:51 PM
That is because on the timeline he did not stop and obviously did not go back to his truck because he found TM. According to Papa's chart he was still on the phone with the dispatcher when he reached the point of the cross walks and still had another minute on the phone with them before he would have hung up. Plenty of time to get back to his truck.....What was he doing????? jmo

It will be interesting to see how the defense is going to spin this.
I hope we will get to see the video of the reenactment which could be very interesting.
One other thing, about why Trayvon did not make it home yet since there was apparently enough time. In my experience , teens are funny when they are on the phone and want absolute privacy. Many a time I heard my son come home(parking his car) but he would take forever to open the front door. The answer I always got that he was on the phone. Go figure.

tpgks
05-06-2012, 06:04 PM
You would have actually shot them if you did think you could get away with it????

You are not asking me, but I will answer. I would not hesitate to use deadly force against somebody entering my property in the middle of the night. My property also extends to my vehicle.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm

pcrum12
05-06-2012, 06:08 PM
Electronics are heavy...jewelry not so much. When my parents were broken in a few years ago the burglar took their pillow cases and filled them with jewelry, coins and crystal. Came and left on foot.

:tyou: That's exactly what I was gonna say, JEWELRY doesn't weigh much and fits in pockets easily.

LambChop
05-06-2012, 06:40 PM
:tyou: That's exactly what I was gonna say, JEWELRY doesn't weigh much and fits in pockets easily.

Who would leave expensive jewelry around? If you spent a lot of money on your jewelry why wouldn't you protect it??? jmo

suspicious1
05-06-2012, 07:19 PM
ITA. I think GZ went down the outer sidewalk while TM was walking on the sidewalk in between the units. That was why TM said to his girlfriend that he had lost GZ. Once TM felt safe, he slowed from his faster pace to a stroll as he had a conversation with his girlfriend on the phone. IMO GZ went around the outside and tried to head TM off. This scenario would have taken a bit longer than if GZ had "followed" TM and would also account for TM telling his girlfriend he had lost him. This is just speculation on my part but it fits the timeline I think.

ITA!

This would also explain why TM didn't make it home. GZ had cut off the route to the home.

It would also explain to me why TM felt the need to then ask GZ why he was following him. TM thought he lost him only to come face to face with him moments later.

JMO

pcrum12
05-06-2012, 08:30 PM
Who would leave expensive jewelry around? If you spent a lot of money on your jewelry why wouldn't you protect it??? jmo

Happens every day - lots of ppl leave jewelry laying around their home. IMO

IzzyBlanche
05-06-2012, 09:35 PM
What do y'all make of this? BBM

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said he hasn't yet seen his client's statements to police, and it would be inappropriate for him to address specific evidence in the case.

Link: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503,0,163416.story

Why not? What's he waiting for?

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 09:44 PM
Wait a second...so, we now think Trayvon was on a jewelry heist, or is this GZ's imagination again? Just because GZ said Trayvon looked suspicious, doesn't mean squat. He's been wrong how many times, when he has called 911? :what: He had all the items to carry out a crime, on his person. Trayvon, nada.

Last I heard, Trayvon was talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend, the only thing in his pockets, were skittles and an ice tea.

IMO - the defense will never overcome that one.

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 09:48 PM
What do y'all make of this? BBM

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said he hasn't yet seen his client's statements to police, and it would be inappropriate for him to address specific evidence in the case.

Link: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503,0,163416.story

Why not? What's he waiting for?
Delay, delay, delay. Bring in the $$ on the website. JMO

vlpate
05-06-2012, 10:29 PM
Delay, delay, delay. Bring in the $$ on the website. JMO

I'm not being snarky, I truly don't know how MO'M is holding the process of discovery up...

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 10:38 PM
I'm not being snarky, I truly don't know how MO'M is holding the process of discovery up...

George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O'Mara, said on his website Sunday he'll delay asking prosecutors for evidence in the case until a judge rules to protect the witnesses.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503159_1_social-media-witness-safety-twitter-and-facebook-accounts (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503159_1_social-media-witness-safety-twitter-and-facebook-accounts)

That's his story anyway. I don't know why it would take so long to redact a few names. :dunno:

IMO

vlpate
05-06-2012, 10:39 PM
No, following is the correct term when you get out of your car to walk towards and watch someone. When they disappear around a corner and you are trying to find them that is following them. Once the person starts to run, you are pursuing them. Once you start to run after them you are chasing them. TM was not a suspect. He had every right to be within that community. TM had every right to walk home without someone following him. GZ did not need to follow him because TM was right there in front of the clubhouse when GZ called LE and never once did GZ ask TM who he was and where he was staying. TM was not a criminal and regardless of what GZ thought, it did not make it so. jmo

GZ was in front of the club house, TM was walking about, looking at houses.

vlpate
05-06-2012, 10:43 PM
George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O'Mara, said on his website Sunday he'll delay asking prosecutors for evidence in the case until a judge rules to protect the witnesses.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503159_1_social-media-witness-safety-twitter-and-facebook-accounts (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503159_1_social-media-witness-safety-twitter-and-facebook-accounts)

That's his story anyway. I don't know why it would take so long to redact a few names. :dunno:

IMO

This article is from April 30th. I would think the prosecution would be in charge of redacting names. Thanks for the link.

Karmady
05-06-2012, 10:46 PM
George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O'Mara, said on his website Sunday he'll delay asking prosecutors for evidence in the case until a judge rules to protect the witnesses.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503159_1_social-media-witness-safety-twitter-and-facebook-accounts (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503159_1_social-media-witness-safety-twitter-and-facebook-accounts)

That's his story anyway. I don't know why it would take so long to redact a few names. :dunno:

IMO

As I undertand it, they're not waiting on the redacting, they're waiting on the motion and the court's ruling on the motion allowing/defining the redaction, i.e., what they will be permitted to withhold from public consumption. I imagine the motion practice has something to do with making sure the i's are dotted and t's crossed vis-a-vis the media and Sunshine laws. jmo

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 10:48 PM
GZ was in front of the club house, TM was walking about, looking at houses.
Trayvon was walking home, nothing more, nothing less. JMO

vlpate
05-06-2012, 10:51 PM
As I undertand it, they're not waiting on the redacting, they're waiting on the motion and the court's ruling on the motion allowing/defining the redaction, i.e., what they will be permitted to withhold from public consumption. I imagine the motion practice has something to do with making sure the i's are dotted and t's crossed vis-a-vis the media and Sunshine laws. jmo

You're right, I looked at some other articles and this is what I am seeing.

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 10:51 PM
As I undertand it, they're not waiting on the redacting, they're waiting on the motion and the court's ruling on the motion allowing/defining the redaction, i.e., what they will be permitted to withhold from public consumption. I imagine the motion practice has something to do with making sure the i's are dotted and t's crossed vis-a-vis the media and Sunshine laws. jmo

The ball is in O'Mara's court to file that motion. Has the motion been file yet? If not, why?

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 10:52 PM
I do not think the defense is in any hurry to have the records released, especially GZ's statements and "medical" records. JMO They can delay it and they are. The motion is just ridiculous. How hard could it be for both parties to get it done? Who benefits from it not being released, certainly not the prosecutor. MOM knows, once he receives the information, the clock starts ticking..tick tock.

JMO

vlpate
05-06-2012, 10:53 PM
Trayvon was walking home, nothing more, nothing less. JMO

My comment was taken out of context, however, there is no way for anyone to know, besides GZ and TM, what TM was doing. Of course, TM is not able to tell his side, doesn't change the fact that we, sitting behind our respective computers, do not know what Martin was doing.

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 10:56 PM
I do not think the defense is in any hurry to have the records released, especially GZ's statements and "medical" records. JMO They can delay it and they are. The motion is just ridiculous. How hard could it be for both parties to get it done? Who benefits from it not being released, certainly not the prosecutor. MOM knows, once he receives the information, the clock starts ticking..tick tock.

JMO

Bingo!! (Or should I say cha-ching.)

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 10:58 PM
My comment was taken out of context, however, there is no way for anyone to know, besides GZ and TM, what TM was doing. Of course, TM is not able to tell his side, doesn't change the fact that we, sitting behind our respective computers, do not know what Martin was doing.

We know he was talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

IzzyBlanche
05-06-2012, 10:59 PM
George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O'Mara, said on his website Sunday he'll delay asking prosecutors for evidence in the case until a judge rules to protect the witnesses.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503159_1_social-media-witness-safety-twitter-and-facebook-accounts (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503159_1_social-media-witness-safety-twitter-and-facebook-accounts)

That's his story anyway. I don't know why it would take so long to redact a few names. :dunno:

IMO

How many witness names could there be in GZ's own statements to police? :waitasec:

vlpate
05-06-2012, 11:02 PM
I do not think the defense is in any hurry to have the records released, especially GZ's statements and "medical" records. JMO They can delay it and they are. The motion is just ridiculous. How hard could it be for both parties to get it done? Who benefits from it not being released, certainly not the prosecutor. MOM knows, once he receives the information, the clock starts ticking..tick tock.

JMO

It does not appear to me either side is anxious for the records to be released:

Is secrecy justified in George Zimmerman case? (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/132g59x/-/index.html)

"Right when it appeared that April 12 hearing was over, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey whispered something to Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara -- and the microphones picked it up.

"What about the sealing?" Corey asked O'Mara."

.

Karmady
05-06-2012, 11:02 PM
The ball is in O'Mara's court to file that motion. Has the motion been file yet? If not, why?

I don't know whether it has or why/why not. It sounded like you were saying that there shouldn't be a delay b/c of a little redacting. I was just responding to that.

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 11:04 PM
My comment was taken out of context, however, there is no way for anyone to know, besides GZ and TM, what TM was doing. Of course, TM is not able to tell his side, doesn't change the fact that we, sitting behind our respective computers, do not know what Martin was doing.

That is correct. Trayvon is dead, he can't speak for himself. But, common sense, with all that has been released, says Trayvon was simply walking home, talking to his girlfriend within a couple of minutes of being shot dead, coming home from a 7-11 with Skittles and an ice-tea. Nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, he tried to get away from GZ, not the other way around.

This is JMO, from all I have read. We can agree to disagree.

vlpate
05-06-2012, 11:05 PM
We know he was talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

I don't know that. The girlfriend's call started at 7:12, which is two minutes after the 911 call started. GZ found him suspicious sometime before 7:09.

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 11:07 PM
It does not appear to me either side is anxious for the records to be released:

Is secrecy justified in George Zimmerman case? (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/132g59x/-/index.html)

"Right when it appeared that April 12 hearing was over, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey whispered something to Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara -- and the microphones picked it up.

"What about the sealing?" Corey asked O'Mara."

.
Of course the prosecution wants some things sealed! That was a long time ago. I'm sure they are ready to get this started. The defense is the only party that benefits from a delay.

Tick-Toc.

Document dump soon?? :please:

vlpate
05-06-2012, 11:10 PM
That is correct. Trayvon is dead, he can't speak for himself. But, common sense, with all that has been released, says Trayvon was simply walking home, talking to his girlfriend within a couple of minutes of being shot dead, coming home from a 7-11 with Skittles and an ice-tea. Nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, he tried to get away from GZ, not the other way around.

This is JMO, from all I have read. We can agree to disagree.

If he was simply walking home, why did he stare at GZ and then circle his truck? Why did he run - and when he did run, why didn't he run home? How did he end up in nearly the same place he was first spotted two minutes after he ran? A "statement" and phone records prove nothing when it comes to what he and his friend's conversation was about. We can agree to disagree, but the facts, or lack thereof, remains the same. JMO

Karmady
05-06-2012, 11:12 PM
I don't know that. The girlfriend's call started at 7:12, which is two minutes after the 911 call started. GZ found him suspicious sometime before 7:09.

Actually, imo, all we know is that Crump and a girl claims to have been talking to Trayvon. Afaik, we haven't seen her sworn affidavit. We also actually have no idea what the nature of their relationship was. Crump says she was the gf, but afaik, the girl didn't speak to their relationship. I may have missed that part of her interview, though. I only heard a tiny part. jmo

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 11:21 PM
If he was simply walking home, why did he stare at GZ and then circle his truck? Why did he run - and when he did run, why didn't he run home? How did he end up in nearly the same place he was first spotted two minutes after he ran? A "statement" and phone records prove nothing when it comes to what he and his friend's conversation was about. We can agree to disagree, but the facts, or lack thereof, remains the same. JMO
Trayvon circled GZ's truck? Trayvon ran, ended up at the same place he first started? "Stared" at GZ? Those are not facts, as of today. None of us know what happened that night. We all will have a better idea once the documents are released.

I would run from a madman who was following me, I would stare at him wondering what his problem is, IF these are indeed facts, and I would SCREAM for my life, and try to fight with all I had, if I had the misfortune to run into a want to be cop, with a criminal record, who is nothing more than a failure, even at his neighborhood watch volunteer job.

I will still stick with the charging documents, and believe Trayvon is the victim, until I see otherwise. I respect your right to have your opinion as well, although I don't agree. It would be pretty boring here, if we all expected each other, to agree with one another. :seeya:

Still can't wait for the doc dump. :waiting:

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 11:24 PM
It does not appear to me either side is anxious for the records to be released:

Is secrecy justified in George Zimmerman case? (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/132g59x/-/index.html)

"Right when it appeared that April 12 hearing was over, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey whispered something to Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara -- and the microphones picked it up.

"What about the sealing?" Corey asked O'Mara."

.

From your link...

O'Mara, however, disputes that the information needs to be released to the public now. Despite how O'Mara demanded discovery within 15 days of April 12 in his motion, on two occasions he told Local 6 -- once during an April 25 phone interview and again in person after Friday's hearing -- that the 15 day deadline that marks when Corey is required to turn over discovery to him, and then the public, doesn't start ticking until a defendant's arraignment. Zimmerman's is set for May 8.

The day after Local 6 published a story explaining how Ponce refuted O'Mara's deadline (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Lawyer-Angela-Corey-missed-deadline-to-release-evidence/-/1637132/12190668/-/g2ilu2/-/index.html) pegging discovery disclosure requirements to the upcoming May 8 arraignment, O'Mara backed off his initial statement and made a different argument about why Corey isn't required to release the discovery to members of the public.

"While the rules do state that discovery is due 15 days from demand, that is a right which George Zimmerman enjoys, and it is up to his defense team to decide how to handle these matters," read a statement on GZLegalCase.com, a website O'Mara setup partly to "dispute misinformation."

"We are delaying demanding the discovery until we can file motions to protect these witnesses," O'Mara's statement continues. "Once that is in place, discovery will flow to us, then the media and the public has access to it, under our rules."

But several lawyers Local 6 interviewed believe O'Mara is too late. They don't see how he can file a written demand for discovery within 15 days of April 12 with the court, and then somehow claim the deadline in Rule 3.220(b) doesn't apply -- just so that he can delay the public release of the records in order to file a motion to hide witness information he had plenty of time to file before the deadline.

-------

Why all the waffling? It's not the SA dragging their feet - they have no reason.

lisalei321
05-06-2012, 11:25 PM
If he was simply walking home, why did he stare at GZ and then circle his truck? Why did he run - and when he did run, why didn't he run home? How did he end up in nearly the same place he was first spotted two minutes after he ran? A "statement" and phone records prove nothing when it comes to what he and his friend's conversation was about. We can agree to disagree, but the facts, or lack thereof, remains the same. JMO

If TM circled his truck, why didn't GZ tell the dispatcher that? GZ was on the phone with LE when TM walked by him.


JMO, HMO

vlpate
05-06-2012, 11:30 PM
Of course the prosecution wants some things sealed! That was a long time ago. I'm sure they are ready to get this started. The defense is the only party that benefits from a delay.

Tick-Toc.

Document dump soon?? :please:

The ARTICLE (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/item/1/-/j4gnojz/-/index.html) I cited was from May 2.

"O'Mara's April 12 filing states: (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf) "Pursuant to Rule 3.220 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant hereby respectfully demands that, within fifteen (15) days of the date hereof, the State Attorney disclose to and permit the undersigned attorney to inspect and/or copy any and all relevant information and materials."

The deadline of April 27 is significant, because at that point Corey is required to disclose the records to Zimmerman -- and once that happens the records no longer meet the definition of criminal investigative information exempt from Sunshine Law, according to Scott Ponce, an attorney hired by several news entities to fight for the public's access in the case."
.

vlpate
05-06-2012, 11:33 PM
If TM circled his truck, why didn't GZ tell the dispatcher that? GZ was on the phone with LE when TM walked by him.


JMO, HMO

I don't disagree, and I can't help but wonder why this just came out during the bond hearing - I think from the prosecution. I know there has to be a reason, I just haven't figured that reason out yet.

AngelWings444
05-06-2012, 11:34 PM
The ARTICLE (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/item/1/-/j4gnojz/-/index.html) I cited was from May 2.

"O'Mara's April 12 filing states: (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf) "Pursuant to Rule 3.220 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant hereby respectfully demands that, within fifteen (15) days of the date hereof, the State Attorney disclose to and permit the undersigned attorney to inspect and/or copy any and all relevant information and materials."

The deadline of April 27 is significant, because at that point Corey is required to disclose the records to Zimmerman -- and once that happens the records no longer meet the definition of criminal investigative information exempt from Sunshine Law, according to Scott Ponce, an attorney hired by several news entities to fight for the public's access in the case."
.
I meant the hearing was a long time ago. Sorry for the confusion. You were talking about the hearing, where AC asked to have some things sealed, I said that was a long time ago.

What's the hold up now? Only the defense benefits from the delay. JMO

vlpate
05-06-2012, 11:47 PM
From your link...

O'Mara, however, disputes that the information needs to be released to the public now. Despite how O'Mara demanded discovery within 15 days of April 12 in his motion, on two occasions he told Local 6 -- once during an April 25 phone interview and again in person after Friday's hearing -- that the 15 day deadline that marks when Corey is required to turn over discovery to him, and then the public, doesn't start ticking until a defendant's arraignment. Zimmerman's is set for May 8.

The day after Local 6 published a story explaining how Ponce refuted O'Mara's deadline (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Lawyer-Angela-Corey-missed-deadline-to-release-evidence/-/1637132/12190668/-/g2ilu2/-/index.html) pegging discovery disclosure requirements to the upcoming May 8 arraignment, O'Mara backed off his initial statement and made a different argument about why Corey isn't required to release the discovery to members of the public.

"While the rules do state that discovery is due 15 days from demand, that is a right which George Zimmerman enjoys, and it is up to his defense team to decide how to handle these matters," read a statement on GZLegalCase.com, a website O'Mara setup partly to "dispute misinformation."

"We are delaying demanding the discovery until we can file motions to protect these witnesses," O'Mara's statement continues. "Once that is in place, discovery will flow to us, then the media and the public has access to it, under our rules."

But several lawyers Local 6 interviewed believe O'Mara is too late. They don't see how he can file a written demand for discovery within 15 days of April 12 with the court, and then somehow claim the deadline in Rule 3.220(b) doesn't apply -- just so that he can delay the public release of the records in order to file a motion to hide witness information he had plenty of time to file before the deadline.

-------

Why all the waffling? It's not the SA dragging their feet - they have no reason.

"Hide" witness information? How about "witness 'identifying' information"?

Again, from the same link: "When denying requests from the public for the Zimmerman discovery records Friday, Corey's office told Local 6 Florida law allowed her to keep the records secret using a criminal investigative exemption because "no records have been provided to the defendant."

vlpate
05-06-2012, 11:48 PM
I meant the hearing was a long time ago. Sorry for the confusion. You were talking about the hearing, where AC asked to have some things sealed, I said that was a long time ago.

What's the hold up now? Only the defense benefits from the delay. JMO

How so?

vlpate
05-06-2012, 11:51 PM
Actually, imo, all we know is that Crump and a girl claims to have been talking to Trayvon. Afaik, we haven't seen her sworn affidavit. We also actually have no idea what the nature of their relationship was. Crump says she was the gf, but afaik, the girl didn't speak to their relationship. I may have missed that part of her interview, though. I only heard a tiny part. jmo

IIRC, the Gilbreath only affirmed that they have records that the call was made during the time the 911 call was in progress. He said nothing about what was said during the call. He admitted he, nor anyone else, knows who confronted whom. JMO

cherishtoo
05-06-2012, 11:58 PM
Of course the prosecution wants some things sealed! That was a long time ago. I'm sure they are ready to get this started. The defense is the only party that benefits from a delay.

Tick-Toc.

Document dump soon?? :please:

Exactly! What is this obvious delay all about?

IIRC, both sides have agreed that the names of the witnesses should be protected, but why hasn't the general information (with those names redacted) been released yet?

AngelWings444
05-07-2012, 12:01 AM
How so?
I realize that most of us are bored to tears with the lack of information released, but I have already stated some of my reasons. Don't need to have 20 pages of back and forth, on a simple statement/opinion, nor do I want to seem like I am singling you out. :seeya:

Document dump, anyone? :floorlaugh:

RANCH
05-07-2012, 12:17 AM
I meant the hearing was a long time ago. Sorry for the confusion. You were talking about the hearing, where AC asked to have some things sealed, I said that was a long time ago.

What's the hold up now? Only the defense benefits from the delay. JMO

BBM
I guess when discovery is finally released we will be able to say which side benefited from a delay. There could be things that the state isn't too happy about being released and their hoping for a delay to minimize media exposure.

AngelWings444
05-07-2012, 12:39 AM
BBM
I guess when discovery is finally released we will be able to say which side benefited from a delay. There could be things that the state isn't too happy about being released and their hoping for a delay to minimize media exposure.
The media will be all over it, no matter when it's released. A delay will not postpone that fact. I bet, we can all agree on that one. :yesss:

vlpate
05-07-2012, 12:53 AM
I realize that most of us are bored to tears with the lack of information released, but I have already stated some of my reasons. Don't need to have 20 pages of back and forth, on a simple statement/opinion, nor do I want to seem like I am singling you out. :seeya:

Document dump, anyone? :floorlaugh:

Sorry, I saw where you indicated the delay would rake in more $$$, but I figured that was tongue-in-cheek and didn't see any of the other explanations. No problem though :)

IMO, O'Mara would love to have his clients statements as soon as possible. This isn't his only case and he'd probably like to get on with it.

I personally feel the prosecution needed to get past an election and the records are being redacted as we speak. I strongly doubt there is a smoking gun or we'd have heard about it. Watching the bond hearing, there is reasonable doubt that no amount of conjecture is going to overcome. Again, JMO

AngelWings444
05-07-2012, 01:58 AM
Sorry, I saw where you indicated the delay would rake in more $$$, but I figured that was tongue-in-cheek and didn't see any of the other explanations. No problem though :)

IMO, O'Mara would love to have his clients statements as soon as possible. This isn't his only case and he'd probably like to get on with it.

I personally feel the prosecution needed to get past an election and the records are being redacted as we speak. I strongly doubt there is a smoking gun or we'd have heard about it. Watching the bond hearing, there is reasonable doubt that no amount of conjecture is going to overcome. Again, JMO

There wasn't a challenger for the election. Nobody else could have won the election, as nobody challenged AC. An election is a couple years in the making, not a couple of months.

Reasonable doubt is already formed in people's mind, from a bond hearing?? Our justice system is in severe trouble, if that is the case. If "we" are to wait for evidence to convict GZ, then we certainly should allow the State to put on their case, or at least release SOME documents to believe he is not culpable, in any manner, for Trayvon's death. My goodness...

ETA: Will anyone here change their mind if the documents lean towards GZ being guilty? I wonder...

vlpate
05-07-2012, 05:23 AM
There wasn't a challenger for the election. Nobody else could have won the election, as nobody challenged AC. An election is a couple years in the making, not a couple of months.
I've always believed an elected official is only as good as their last failed hot button issue or act of moral turpitude, no matter how long they've been in office. JMO

Reasonable doubt is already formed in people's mind, from a bond hearing?? Our justice system is in severe trouble, if that is the case. If "we" are to wait for evidence to convict GZ, then we certainly should allow the State to put on their case, or at least release SOME documents to believe he is not culpable, in any manner, for Trayvon's death. My goodness...

ETA: Will anyone here change their mind if the documents lean towards GZ being guilty? I wonder...

Let me rephrase, there's not enough evidence for Murder 2, IMO, based on...

Confrontation
"O'Mara: So do you know who started the fight?

GILBREATH: Do I know?

O'MARA: Right.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?

GILBREATH: No.
<Snip> Stopped Following
O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?

GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time?

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.
<snip> First Punch
O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.
<snip> Injuries
O'MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don't they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O'MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O'MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn't consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was. "
Transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html)

Unless they have video of GZ chasing TM down with his gun out, I can't imagine what they have to offset this. JMO

who
05-07-2012, 05:41 AM
I've always believed an elected official is only as good as their last failed hot button issue or act of moral turpitude, no matter how long they've been in office. JMO


Let me rephrase, there's not enough evidence for Murder 2, IMO, based on...

Confrontation
"O'Mara: So do you know who started the fight?

GILBREATH: Do I know?

O'MARA: Right.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?

GILBREATH: No.
<Snip> ...

Unless they have video of GZ chasing TM down with his gun out, I can't imagine what they have to offset this. JMO
So have you seen any this evidence?



EMT report
Autopsy results
Results of the blood spatter testing
Gunshot residue on TM
Testing of Zimmerman's clothing
Sworn testimony of each witness
Trajectory of the bullet
Fingerprint (s) report on the gun
Toxicology results
DNA reports. Ex: Z's saliva on Trayvon's hands/ Z's DNA found under Trayvon's fingernails, etc...
Sustained defensive wounds on Trayvon
Voice analysis results of the FBI enhanced tapes
Zimmerman's recorded audio of his screaming recreated.
Crime scene pictures, including location of truck, where the Skittles and Tea were found...and where blood evidence was found - or NOT found.
Video of Z questioning the night of the shooting/next day reenactment
Police pictures of his wounds.
Statements made by Z that night

I'm pretty sure I can answer that. A: No.

pcrum12
05-07-2012, 06:36 AM
If TM circled his truck, why didn't GZ tell the dispatcher that? GZ was on the phone with LE when TM walked by him.


JMO, HMO

No GZ didn't say to the dispatcher He's circling my vehicle but he did say He's staring at me, He's checking me out, He's coming toward me, He's got his hand in waistband, Something's wrong with him, etc. Then he says He's running. Now if that isn't suspicious.... Imo. We don't always say what we are thinking and TM COULD have been circling his vehicle. All JMO.

AJ Noiter
05-07-2012, 06:41 AM
The media will be all over it, no matter when it's released. A delay will not postpone that fact. I bet, we can all agree on that one. :yesss:

And I'll still read/view everything for myself instead of blindly believing what the media says :)

lisalei321
05-07-2012, 06:45 AM
No GZ didn't say to the dispatcher He's circling my vehicle but he did say He's staring at me, He's checking me out, He's coming toward me, He's got his hand in waistband, Something's wrong with him, etc. Then he says He's running. Now if that isn't suspicious.... Imo. We don't always say what we are thinking and TM COULD have been circling his vehicle. All JMO.

As much as he was saying, I think (JMO), I'm sure he would have have brought this up as another suspicious behavior on TM if it were true. At this time I don't believe it happened.

AJ Noiter
05-07-2012, 06:47 AM
So have you seen any this evidence?



EMT report
Autopsy results
Results of the blood spatter testing
Gunshot residue on TM
Testing of Zimmerman's clothing
Sworn testimony of each witness
Trajectory of the bullet
Fingerprint (s) report on the gun
Toxicology results
DNA reports. Ex: Z's saliva on Trayvon's hands/ Z's DNA found under Trayvon's fingernails, etc...
Sustained defensive wounds on Trayvon
Voice analysis results of the FBI enhanced tapes
Zimmerman's recorded audio of his screaming recreated.
Crime scene pictures, including location of truck, where the Skittles and Tea were found...and where blood evidence was found - or NOT found.
Video of Z questioning the night of the shooting/next day reenactment
Police pictures of his wounds.
Statements made by Z that night

I'm pretty sure I can answer that. A: No.

I would assume an investigator on the case would have reviewed all of that information.

vlpate
05-07-2012, 07:33 AM
So have you seen any this evidence?



EMT report
Autopsy results
Results of the blood spatter testing
Gunshot residue on TM
Testing of Zimmerman's clothing
Sworn testimony of each witness
Trajectory of the bullet
Fingerprint (s) report on the gun
Toxicology results
DNA reports. Ex: Z's saliva on Trayvon's hands/ Z's DNA found under Trayvon's fingernails, etc...
Sustained defensive wounds on Trayvon
Voice analysis results of the FBI enhanced tapes
Zimmerman's recorded audio of his screaming recreated.
Crime scene pictures, including location of truck, where the Skittles and Tea were found...and where blood evidence was found - or NOT found.
Video of Z questioning the night of the shooting/next day reenactment
Police pictures of his wounds.
Statements made by Z that night

I'm pretty sure I can answer that. A: No.

No! I have not, but I am looking forward to it, especially if you had the g/f phone statement. My comment addressed Murder 2, even with the above, I don't see how they can pull it off, JMO

iluvmua
05-07-2012, 01:35 PM
And Angelwings, Yes, I will change my tune if in fact GZ's case is leaning towards guilty.

as of now, everything backs up with GZ and witnesses accounts of what happened.

AngelWings444
05-07-2012, 01:43 PM
And I'll still read/view everything for myself instead of blindly believing what the media says :)

I hope you aren't insinuating that our WS members, including me, blindly believe what the media says? That is simply not the case here.

The people here are amazing at putting things together, from reading about the case, not the articles released by the media. Sometimes, they figure out things before the prosecution/defense.

I have no doubt MOM is reading here, or having someone read here, just like JB did.

AngelWings444
05-07-2012, 01:46 PM
And Angelwings, Yes, I will change my tune if in fact GZ's case is leaning towards guilty.

as of now, everything backs up with GZ and witnesses accounts of what happened.
An open mind is a good thing. We haven't seen any evidence. I don't think everything backs up GZ right now. The investigator said his 5 statements conflict with the evidence.

I can't wait to read all the documents. We were promised it would be today by one of WS posters. Hmmm... The day isn't over, I guess. :waitasec:

suzihawk
05-07-2012, 02:02 PM
An open mind is a good thing. We haven't seen any evidence. I don't think everything backs up GZ right now. The investigator said his 5 statements conflict with the evidence.

I can't wait to read all the documents. We were promised it would be today by one of WS posters. Hmmm... The day isn't over, I guess. :waitasec:

I don't know that M'OM has even file a motion for discovery yet.

:sigh:

LambChop
05-07-2012, 02:12 PM
You asked.

I answered.

I have not attacked anyone based on my opinion of them following the media. Attacks are not necessary at all. In fact, I have found myself completely typing out a response, sometimes lengthy, to not submit that response based on my opinion of whether or not that person blindly follows the media.

Unless there is a hearing all information does come from the media. I think most of us are able to figure out what makes sense and what does not and that is why we go back and forth. It is a way to filter out the garbage. It does make a difference when the State brings charges of 2nd degree murder and more people are included to think the State feels they have something to prove their charges. jmo

AJ Noiter
05-07-2012, 02:16 PM
Unless there is a hearing all information does come from the media. I think most of us are able to figure out what makes sense and what does not and that is why we go back and forth. It is a way to filter out the garbage. It does make a difference when the State brings charges of 2nd degree murder and more people are included to think the State feels they have something to prove their charges. jmo

I stated as much in my vote. I don't see how the state can't have more, but from my current understanding of everything official that I have seen, I have to support Mr. Zimmerman. This may change in the future.

AngelWings444
05-07-2012, 02:21 PM
<modsnip>

So, about that defense perspective?

LambChop
05-07-2012, 02:23 PM
I stated as much in my vote. I don't see how the state can't have more, but from my current understanding of everything official that I have seen, I have to support Mr. Zimmerman. This may change in the future.

And there is nothing wrong with that. But some feel they've heard and seen enough to know GZ is lying. Once you lose that credibility many people feel whatever your statement is it can't be trusted. Other's require more evidence and, again, there is nothing wrong with that. jmo

LambChop
05-07-2012, 02:24 PM
Personally, I tend to stick with my opinion on the case, and not others here. But, that's just me.

So, about that defense perspective?

You're such a good Angel.......lol:woohoo:

vlpate
05-07-2012, 02:28 PM
And I'll still read/view everything for myself instead of blindly believing what the media says :)

Ah, I had to follow this back to see what you meant, lol. What Angel was saying is that we'll know when the document dump happens because the media will announce it right away.

Trust me, when it happens we will tear it UP! It's like Christmas for sleuthers!

AJ Noiter
05-07-2012, 02:31 PM
Ah, I had to follow this back to see what you meant, lol. What Angel was saying is that we'll know when the document dump happens because the media will announce it right away.

Trust me, when it happens we will tear it UP! It's like Christmas for sleuthers!

Ah, it now occurs to me that he/she may have thought that I was saying that specifically to him/her. That's not the case, I was just making the statement in general and do apologize if it was conceived to be pointed at someone.

AngelWings444
05-07-2012, 02:34 PM
Ah, it now occurs to me that he/she may have thought that I was saying that specifically to him/her. That's not the case, I was just making the statement in general and do apologize if it was conceived to be pointed at someone.
I did not believe it was directed at me. A "general" statement, <modsnip>. That was my opinion.

Can we move on before we all get tossed?

LambChop
05-07-2012, 02:36 PM
Ah, I had to follow this back to see what you meant, lol. What Angel was saying is that we'll know when the document dump happens because the media will announce it right away.

Trust me, when it happens we will tear it UP! It's like Christmas for sleuthers!

LOL. I know. You can almost here the "thumping" on their keyboards. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

beach
05-07-2012, 02:37 PM
:lurk:


Moving along now... :whistle:


Topic: Defense Perspective.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 02:48 PM
:lurk:


Moving along now... :whistle:


Topic: Defense Perspective.

I see you peeking.....sorry, Beach. lol

vlpate
05-07-2012, 02:57 PM
I stated as much in my vote. I don't see how the state can't have more, but from my current understanding of everything official that I have seen, I have to support Mr. Zimmerman. This may change in the future.

It seemed to me that the investigator, Gilbreath, was very defensive when being questioned, uncomfortable even. I seriously believe they've shown all their cards. Aside from the g/f's phone call, which seems to be hearsay, at best, what else could they have to shock and awe us?

suzihawk
05-07-2012, 03:02 PM
It seemed to me that the investigator, Gilbreath, was very defensive when being questioned, uncomfortable even. I seriously believe they've shown all their cards. Aside from the g/f's phone call, which seems to be hearsay, at best, what else could they have to shock and awe us?

He wasn't prepared for the impromptu mini-trial that was sprung on him by O'Mara at the last moment. I think they have much more and will do just fine at trial. We'll see...

JMO

LambChop
05-07-2012, 03:04 PM
It seemed to me that the investigator, Gilbreath, was very defensive when being questioned, uncomfortable even. I seriously believe they've shown all their cards. Aside from the g/f's phone call, which seems to be hearsay, at best, what else could they have to shock and awe us?

I think the investigator was uncomfortable with MOM because he was unprepared to testify and he did choose his words carefully as if he did not want to trip himself up. GF's call is admissible I believe because TM is dead and cannot testify about the call himself. Why else would they be considering her testimony for the Grand Jury? But I also believe the jury would get special instructions about her testimony. jmo

AJ Noiter
05-07-2012, 03:07 PM
I think the investigator was uncomfortable with MOM because he was unprepared to testify and he did choose his words carefully as if he did not want to trip himself up. GF's call is admissible I believe because TM is dead and cannot testify about the call himself. Why else would they be considering her testimony for the Grand Jury? But I also believe the jury would get special instructions about her testimony. jmo

I think we'd have to get a lawyer in here to say for sure, but it is my understanding that she can testify to Mr. Martin's words but not the events. For example, I don't believe she'd be allowed to say "the stranger showed up again" because she would not be quoting Mr. Martin. Being an "ear witness" she can't state whether the "stranger showed up" or Mr. Martin went up to the stranger.

Again, my understanding and I'm probably wrong.

Karmady
05-07-2012, 03:21 PM
I think we'd have to get a lawyer in here to say for sure, but it is my understanding that she can testify to Mr. Martin's words but not the events. For example, I don't believe she'd be allowed to say "the stranger showed up again" because she would not be quoting Mr. Martin. Being an "ear witness" she can't state whether the "stranger showed up" or Mr. Martin went up to the stranger.

Again, my understanding and I'm probably wrong.

The legal definition of hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay

So, you are correct, imo. The girl on the phone can say what she heard, but not for the purpose of proving that what she heard was reality. For example, if she says Trayvon told me he wasn't going to run, but would walk fast. She can say what she heard, if it is otherwise relevant and admissible, but it won't be admitted for the purpose of proving that Trayvon walked fast or did not run. There would have to be some other valid reason for the court or the jury to hear it.

Gitana, who is a verified lawyer, was here a while back and was of the opinion that there also are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule which may apply, depending on what testimony is offered and the purpose for which it is offered. The case link, below, is a relatively recent case decided under very similar circumstances. It's from another jurisdiction, though, so some of the exceptions may not apply under Fla. law. You can still get a pretty good grasp on the general issue from reading it, though, if you're so inclined. jmo

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ar-court-of-appeals/1131127.html

Elley Mae
05-07-2012, 03:23 PM
It seemed to me that the investigator, Gilbreath, was very defensive when being questioned, uncomfortable even. I seriously believe they've shown all their cards. Aside from the g/f's phone call, which seems to be hearsay, at best, what else could they have to shock and awe us?


http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html

I don't thing they have much more then what we know, jmo I think because GZ was processed thought LE as a self-defense they didn't "collect" any evidence. jmo

snipped by me
“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

LambChop
05-07-2012, 03:24 PM
I think we'd have to get a lawyer in here to say for sure, but it is my understanding that she can testify to Mr. Martin's words but not the events. For example, I don't believe she'd be allowed to say "the stranger showed up again" because she would not be quoting Mr. Martin. Being an "ear witness" she can't state whether the "stranger showed up" or Mr. Martin went up to the stranger.

Again, my understanding and I'm probably wrong.

No. You're right she can testify to what she heard not who was speaking. How would she know? She heard TM ask why are you following me and a male voice say, "What are you doing here?" jmo

LambChop
05-07-2012, 03:26 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html

I don't thing they have much more then what we know, jmo I think because GZ was processed thought LE as a self-defense they didn't "collect" any evidence. jmo

snipped by me
“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

What do we know??? We do not have the ME report. We do not have GZ's many statements. We do not have the video of the reenactment. There is a lot we do not have. We certainly do not have enough to see why the DA charged him with 2nd degree murder. jmo

vlpate
05-07-2012, 03:37 PM
I think the investigator was uncomfortable with MOM because he was unprepared to testify and he did choose his words carefully as if he did not want to trip himself up. GF's call is admissible I believe because TM is dead and cannot testify about the call himself. Why else would they be considering her testimony for the Grand Jury? But I also believe the jury would get special instructions about her testimony. jmo
I agree he was uncomfortable, but the questions weren't hard, IMO. They seemed pretty straightforward. The truth is the truth and it doesn't change.

The only time I heard they were considering her testimony was from Hostin on CNN, via Crump. The Grand Jury does not announce who they will call. I think it was just more spin to make her seem more credible. JMO

vlpate
05-07-2012, 03:44 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html

I don't thing they have much more then what we know, jmo I think because GZ was processed thought LE as a self-defense they didn't "collect" any evidence. jmo

snipped by me
“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

BEM: I disagree, I think they collected what evidence there was to collect, which wasn't much. The gun, the clothes, pictures, eyewitness statements, 911 calls, (hopefully) DNA. I also hope they paid close attention to shoe prints along the area the prosecution says their witness saw shadows and someone running. It seems this witness may have come late, so who knows.

The prosecution was not looking for evidence of anything but GZ guilt, so I think the defense investigation will be much different than what we've seen thus far. JMO

tehcloser
05-07-2012, 03:46 PM
I agree he was uncomfortable, but the questions weren't hard, IMO. They seemed pretty straightforward. The truth is the truth and it doesn't change.

The only time I heard they were considering her testimony was from Hostin on CNN, via Crump. The Grand Jury does not announce who they will call. I think it was just more spin to make her seem more credible. JMO

bbm

ITA....And speaking overall, we'll see if it changed when we get a doc dump. IMO we are going to see some changes in some statements...hence the charges.

vlpate
05-07-2012, 03:52 PM
What do we know??? We do not have the ME report. We do not have GZ's many statements. We do not have the video of the reenactment. There is a lot we do not have. We certainly do not have enough to see why the DA charged him with 2nd degree murder. jmo

Yes, but SPD had all those things when they said this on 3/12: "“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

The ONLY thing they didn't have when this announcement was made, because no one knew about it, was the statement from the g/f, that's it. They had the video of the reenactment and they had the autopsy, and gun forensics. IMO, the murder 2 charges stems from that phone call bringing in the words of TM via her, and reaching. JMO

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html#storylink=cpy

ladonna
05-07-2012, 04:00 PM
I'm unsure where I could ask this queston, but didn't GZ waive his appearance at tomorrow's court appearance?

Phoenixfla
05-07-2012, 04:02 PM
What do we know??? We do not have the ME report. We do not have GZ's many statements. We do not have the video of the reenactment. There is a lot we do not have. We certainly do not have enough to see why the DA charged him with 2nd degree murder. jmo

I would think that the affidavit that provides the probable cause for charging him should have enough in it to justify the charges.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 04:02 PM
BEM: I disagree, I think they collected what evidence there was to collect, which wasn't much. The gun, the clothes, pictures, eyewitness statements, 911 calls, (hopefully) DNA. I also hope they paid close attention to shoe prints along the area the prosecution says their witness saw shadows and someone running. It seems this witness may have come late, so who knows.

The prosecution was not looking for evidence of anything but GZ guilt, so I think the defense investigation will be much different than what we've seen thus far. JMO

It was a homocide and the prosecution was looking for evidence. What the evidence and further investigation showed them was whether or not GZ should be charged and what to charge him with. I'm surprised it was not just manslaughter so what do they have????? jmo

suzihawk
05-07-2012, 04:03 PM
BEM: I disagree, I think they collected what evidence there was to collect, which wasn't much. The gun, the clothes, pictures, eyewitness statements, 911 calls, (hopefully) DNA. I also hope they paid close attention to shoe prints along the area the prosecution says their witness saw shadows and someone running. It seems this witness may have come late, so who knows.

The prosecution was not looking for evidence of anything but GZ guilt, so I think the defense investigation will be much different than what we've seen thus far. JMO

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-family-seeks-fbi-investigation-killing/story?id=15949879#.T6dRxcWkAa8

ABC News has learned police seemed to accept Zimmerman's account at face value that night and that he was not tested for drugs or alcohol on the night of the shooting, even though it is standard procedure in most homicide investigations.

-------

I wonder what else they neglected to do since they took GZ's story at face value?

LambChop
05-07-2012, 04:11 PM
Yes, but SPD had all those things when they said this on 3/12: "“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

The ONLY thing they didn't have when this announcement was made, because no one knew about it, was the statement from the g/f, that's it. They had the video of the reenactment and they had the autopsy, and gun forensics. IMO, the murder 2 charges stems from that phone call bringing in the words of TM via her, and reaching. JMO

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html#storylink=cpy

I don't believe they stated they had the ME report at that time. Where was that reported??? I think the ME report would have been the last report AC would have been waiting for. Was Lee ever out at the crime scene? I don't know. Lee has stepped down he claims "because of my involvement". So the homocide detective wanted to pursue the investigation and it was squashed by Lee and Wolfinger. Both men removed from the case. Pretty much tells us what happened here.

I believe Gilbreath stated what the evidence was and one of those three mentioned was TM's body. I'm guessing the ME report was very, very important. jmo

LambChop
05-07-2012, 04:13 PM
I would think that the affidavit that provides the probable cause for charging him should have enough in it to justify the charges.

Phoenixfla, I think both GZ and MOM waved their appearance for tomorrow. jmo

Phoenixfla
05-07-2012, 04:56 PM
Phoenixfla, I think both GZ and MOM waved their appearance for tomorrow. jmo

I think you may have been replying to another post regarding appearance tomorrow. I was talking about what was in the PC Affidavit.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 05:11 PM
I think you may have been replying to another post regarding appearance tomorrow. I was talking about what was in the PC Affidavit.

Yes, it was another poster. lol Sorry for that.

vlpate
05-07-2012, 05:18 PM
I don't believe they stated they had the ME report at that time. Where was that reported??? I think the ME report would have been the last report AC would have been waiting for. Was Lee ever out at the crime scene? I don't know. Lee has stepped down he claims "because of my involvement". So the homocide detective wanted to pursue the investigation and it was squashed by Lee and Wolfinger. Both men removed from the case. Pretty much tells us what happened here.

I believe Gilbreath stated what the evidence was and one of those three mentioned was TM's body. I'm guessing the ME report was very, very important. jmo

"Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.

Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."
OS article here (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency)

Bold emphasis mine.

suzihawk
05-07-2012, 05:23 PM
"Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.

Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."
OS article here (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency)

Bold emphasis mine.

The BBBM emphasis is mine.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 05:37 PM
The BBBM emphasis is mine.

So he changed his story for this interview. No wonder the Chief said he was stepping down because of "his involvement". Wonder if the detective had thumb screws on under the table. lol just kidding. jmo

vlpate
05-07-2012, 05:56 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-family-seeks-fbi-investigation-killing/story?id=15949879#.T6dRxcWkAa8
<snipped for emphasis>
ABC News has learned police seemed to accept Zimmerman's account at face value that night and that


BEM: Wonder where they "learned" this information?

I'll take ABC's reports at face value, they, along with most media in this case, has abandoned all regard for the facts.

For instance, from your LINK:
""This guy looks like he's on drugs, he's definitely messed up."

Obviously, the bold was never said. Actual words of GZ: "“This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around looking about."
.
Eight 911 Calls

Then there are the BLATANT distortions of truth:
"Zimmerman described Martin as suspicious because he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and walking slowly in the rain, police later told residents at a town hall.

"A dispatcher told him to wait for a police cruiser, and not leave his vehicle.

"Witnesses told ABC News a fistfight broke out and, at one point, Zimmerman, who outweighed Martin by more than 100 pounds, was on the ground and that Martin was on top."

"Witnesses told ABC News they heard Zimmerman pronounce, "It was self-defense," and place the gun on the ground."

"Yet public records showed that Zimmerman was charged with battery against on officer and resisting arrest in 2005, a charge that was later expunged."

ALL bolded are fabrications. This reporter should be terminated, IMO. Even with an allowed MSM source such as this poor excuse, people should go elsewhere for the truth.

None of this is relative to the defensive or the prosecutor's perspective, this is fodder for an online petition.

JMO

vlpate
05-07-2012, 05:58 PM
The BBBM emphasis is mine.

In context:

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

vlpate
05-07-2012, 06:00 PM
So he changed his story for this interview. No wonder the Chief said he was stepping down because of "his involvement". Wonder if the detective had thumb screws on under the table. lol just kidding. jmo

How did he change his story? He had never spoken out about this case before. If you are referring to Tracy Martin's version of what Serino said, that is hearsay.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 06:10 PM
How did he change his story? He had never spoken out about this case before. If you are referring to Tracy Martin's version of what Serino said, that is hearsay.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/27/Report-Detective-wanted-Zimmerman-charged/UPI-41991332833400/

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-28/news/31246265_1_zimmerman-fatal-shooting-twitter-account

I think we have known that the homocide detective wanted to press charges the first night from the beginning. I don't think this is news we have not heard before. jmo

suzihawk
05-07-2012, 06:35 PM
In context:

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

In or out of context, it doesn't change my opinion. I don't find Zimmerman very credible.

Serino was the officer that wanted Zimmerman arrested on manslaughter charges but was overruled by Chief Lee and SA Wolfinger - both of which stepped down. I wonder why Serino felt compelled to change his story?

vlpate
05-07-2012, 06:56 PM
In or out of context, it doesn't change my opinion. I don't find Zimmerman very credible.

Serino was the officer that wanted Zimmerman arrested on manslaughter charges but was overruled by Chief Lee and SA Wolfinger - both of which stepped down. I wonder why Serino felt compelled to change his story?

I've read this stated in articles without named sources, and I've seen Wolfinger flat deny it, would you have a link for the bolded please? TIA

vlpate
05-07-2012, 07:08 PM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/27/Report-Detective-wanted-Zimmerman-charged/UPI-41991332833400/

From your source:
"Florida prosecutors overruled a police detective's recommendation to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter in the death Trayvon Martin, ABC News reported.

Chris Serino, the lead homicide detective on the case, recommended charging Zimmerman the night the neighborhood watch volunteer shot and killed Martin, an unarmed teenager, in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., ABC reported Tuesday, citing sources it did not name."


http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...witter-account

I think we have known that the homocide detective wanted to press charges the first night from the beginning. I don't think this is news we have not heard before. jmo

Yet, we were told differently by LE and Serino himself, to no avail. People will believe what they want to believe.

Your second link is the same. This story came from ABC via Tracy Martin, not anyone in law enforcement, FBI, Special Prosecutor, etc.,.

suzihawk
05-07-2012, 07:24 PM
I've read this stated in articles without named sources, and I've seen Wolfinger flat deny it, would you have a link for the bolded please? TIA

There were many reports of this in late March. Of course he denied! :rolleyes:

Was this before or after he stepped down from the case? I know it was before he suddenly decided not to run for re-election. I'm anxious to see what the DOJ uncovers.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 07:39 PM
There were many reports of this in late March. Of course he denied! :rolleyes:

Was this before or after he stepped down from the case? I know it was before he suddenly decided not to run for re-election. I'm anxious to see what the DOJ uncovers.

I think the investigation into the SPD is still ongoing, is it not? Amazing because I think that homocide detective still has his job. I don't believe anyone has asked him to step down seeing that the DA's investigator stated GZ's stories are inconsistent.

I also have to wonder why Tracy would lie about the homocide detective telling him he wanted to press charges against GZ when that very thing has now happened. I believe this detective did exactly what he was told to do.

My husband told me once he was asked to go to the "club" after work for a couple of drinks with the other "in" officers, detectives, supervisors. He declined telling this person he was not a drinker and preferred to go home after work to relax. This superior officer turned to him and said, "You'll never make detective that way." My husband's answer was "so be it." He did make detective but only because they changed Chiefs and the new one did not parttake in the clubbing. There are a lot of politics within the police departments everywhere. jmo

LambChop
05-07-2012, 07:45 PM
From your source:
"Florida prosecutors overruled a police detective's recommendation to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter in the death Trayvon Martin, ABC News reported.

Chris Serino, the lead homicide detective on the case, recommended charging Zimmerman the night the neighborhood watch volunteer shot and killed Martin, an unarmed teenager, in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., ABC reported Tuesday, citing sources it did not name."



Yet, we were told differently by LE and Serino himself, to no avail. People will believe what they want to believe.
Your second link is the same. This story came from ABC via Tracy Martin, not anyone in law enforcement, FBI, Special Prosecutor, etc.,.

Obviously the Chief felt this way, too. What was the point of having the homicide detective at the news conference? The Chief could have handed that press conference all by himself. No reason to take a detective away from his duties. Or was it to cover up what was already out there? We shall see. At some point Detective Serino will have to testify. jmo

Omachka
05-07-2012, 07:47 PM
I think we'd have to get a lawyer in here to say for sure, but it is my understanding that she can testify to Mr. Martin's words but not the events. For example, I don't believe she'd be allowed to say "the stranger showed up again" because she would not be quoting Mr. Martin. Being an "ear witness" she can't state whether the "stranger showed up" or Mr. Martin went up to the stranger.

Again, my understanding and I'm probably wrong.

There is a lawyer thread up in the sticky threads. Why not ask your legal questions up there? When one of the resident lawyers sees a post up there, they will answer and then you can link their answer in the proper thread. :angel:

Phoenixfla
05-07-2012, 08:33 PM
There wasn't a challenger for the election. Nobody else could have won the election, as nobody challenged AC. An election is a couple years in the making, not a couple of months.

Reasonable doubt is already formed in people's mind, from a bond hearing?? Our justice system is in severe trouble, if that is the case. If "we" are to wait for evidence to convict GZ, then we certainly should allow the State to put on their case, or at least release SOME documents to believe he is not culpable, in any manner, for Trayvon's death. My goodness...

ETA: Will anyone here change their mind if the documents lean towards GZ being guilty? I wonder...

Lean towards - no, but if they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I would have no problem finding him guilty. I have said that from the beginning.

vlpate
05-07-2012, 08:37 PM
Obviously the Chief felt this way, too. What was the point of having the homicide detective at the news conference? The Chief could have handed that press conference all by himself. No reason to take a detective away from his duties. Or was it to cover up what was already out there? We shall see. At some point Detective Serino will have to testify. jmo

ABC has made many, many, misleading statements based on what Crump and Tracy Martin have told them, so why would I believe this report? The Chief, Serino himself, and Wolfinger all said they didn't have enough probable cause to arrest GZ. Even if Serino did want to arrest him that night, an investigation by SPD changed his mind. JMO

AJ Noiter
05-07-2012, 08:39 PM
Curiosity: Why did Mr. O'Mara ask Judge Recksiedler to step aside? I understand her husband had some deal with reporting the case to CNN (?) but I don't see how that would play on anything in court.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 08:40 PM
ABC has made many, many, misleading statements based on what Crump and Tracy Martin have told them, so why would I believe this report? The Chief, Serino himself, and Wolfinger all said they didn't have enough probable cause to arrest GZ. Even if Serino did want to arrest him that night, an investigation by SPD changed his mind. JMO

Well, then thank goodness for the DA's investigator. Bet no one was going to try and twist his arm. lol

gxm
05-07-2012, 08:43 PM
Lean towards - no, but if they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I would have no problem finding him guilty. I have said that from the beginning.

I'm pretty much where you are but IMO the 2nd degree appears to be such a stretch that I don't think I could convict on anything greater than manslaughter.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 08:46 PM
Curiosity: Why did Mr. O'Mara ask Judge Recksiedler to step aside? I understand her husband had some deal with reporting the case to CNN (?) but I don't see how that would play on anything in court.

The judge disclosed the fact herself and opted out by stepping down because her husband was a "talking head" for CNN. I would say she had some concerns, I don't think MOM did. Maybe she did not want her husband to have to give up his job at CNN. To the outside world it would have appeared as if he might have "inside" information even though he would not. It's a lot neater this way. jmo

magnolia
05-07-2012, 08:48 PM
There wasn't a challenger for the election. Nobody else could have won the election, as nobody challenged AC. An election is a couple years in the making, not a couple of months.

Reasonable doubt is already formed in people's mind, from a bond hearing?? Our justice system is in severe trouble, if that is the case. If "we" are to wait for evidence to convict GZ, then we certainly should allow the State to put on their case, or at least release SOME documents to believe he is not culpable, in any manner, for Trayvon's death. My goodness...

ETA: Will anyone here change their mind if the documents lean towards GZ being guilty? I wonder...

Absolutely I will.

vlpate
05-07-2012, 08:58 PM
There were many reports of this in late March. Of course he denied! :rolleyes:

Was this before or after he stepped down from the case? I know it was before he suddenly decided not to run for re-election. I'm anxious to see what the DOJ uncovers.

So. no link that directly sources Lee, Wolfinger, Serino, FBI, Special Prosecutor, anyone in LE, that says Serino wanted to arrest GZ?

BEM: Any links to those reports in late March that aren't parroting ABC's initial report?

April 2nd OS LINK (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency)
"Benjamin Crump sent a formal request to the federal agency Monday, saying he believes Wolfinger and police Chief Bill Lee Jr. met Feb. 26 and overruled a homicide investigator's recommendation that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter.

Monday afternoon, Wolfinger said there was no meeting and that the letter was based on "outright lies". He also denounced "those spreading … irresponsible rhetoric".

<snip>
Some news agencies have reported that Sanford's lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger's office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.
<snip>
Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense."

From the defense perspective, this is an important admission by the lead investigator who has not stepped down, nor has he been terminated."

Bold emphasis mine.

AJ Noiter
05-07-2012, 09:06 PM
The judge disclosed the fact herself and opted out by stepping down because her husband was a "talking head" for CNN. I would say she had some concerns, I don't think MOM did. Maybe she did not want her husband to have to give up his job at CNN. To the outside world it would have appeared as if he might have "inside" information even though he would not. It's a lot neater this way. jmo

Thanks for the input. I, personally, don't care if he might have "inside" information or not, but that's me.

LambChop
05-07-2012, 09:06 PM
So. no link that directly sources Lee, Wolfinger, Serino, FBI, Special Prosecutor, anyone in LE, that says Serino wanted to arrest GZ?

BEM: Any links to those reports in late March that aren't parroting ABC's initial report?

April 2nd OS LINK (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency)
"Benjamin Crump sent a formal request to the federal agency Monday, saying he believes Wolfinger and police Chief Bill Lee Jr. met Feb. 26 and overruled a homicide investigator's recommendation that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter.

Monday afternoon, Wolfinger said there was no meeting and that the letter was based on "outright lies". He also denounced "those spreading … irresponsible rhetoric".

<snip>
Some news agencies have reported that Sanford's lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger's office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.
<snip>
Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense."

From the defense perspective, this is an important admission by the lead investigator who has not stepped down, nor has he been terminated."

Bold emphasis mine.

Maybe at the time it was Serino's gut feeling that GZ was lying and he had no "in hand" evidence but apparently the DA has it now? So whatever Chief Lee had to say that day, given that they obviously had not done a thorough investigation, is now coming back to haunt him. We can see holes with what little we know now. Interesting about the new chief. He likes to clean house from what I understand. jmo

LambChop
05-07-2012, 09:08 PM
Thanks for the input. I, personally, don't care if he might have "inside" information or not, but that's me.

I don't think the Florida Bar would take too kindly if MOM were to complain. She did the right thing. Plus it opens up the possibility that somewhere right in the middle of the trial MOM may say....I want this judge to recluse herself......let's start over. I think it's an ethics matter. Some have it, some don't. jmo

suzihawk
05-07-2012, 09:12 PM
So. no link that directly sources Lee, Wolfinger, Serino, FBI, Special Prosecutor, anyone in LE, that says Serino wanted to arrest GZ?



<snipped>

http://www.kltv.com/story/17270330/lead-inestigator-wanted-to-press-charges-in-trayvon-case

According to ABC News, lead investigator Chris Serino wanted to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter after interviewing him on the night he shot Trayvon Martin, 17.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674

The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-shooter-teenager-gun/story?id=16000239) recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-attorney-friend-speak-trayvon-martin-incident/story?id=15999256) be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/17270330/lead-inestigator-wanted-to-press-charges-in-trayvon-case

According to ABC News, lead investigator Chris Serino wanted to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter after interviewing him on the night he shot Trayvon Martin, 17.


ABC News reported (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T3NhR811P6K) the lead homicide investigator, Chris Serino, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter, but the state attorney’s office felt there was not enough evidence to bring a case. He filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night Trayvon was killed, saying he did not believe Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.


Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/29/report-police-initially-wanted-to-make-arrest-in-trayvon-martin-case/#ixzz1uEiHnDxf

----------

Is that enough?

gxm
05-07-2012, 09:20 PM
<snipped>

http://www.kltv.com/story/17270330/lead-inestigator-wanted-to-press-charges-in-trayvon-case

According to ABC News, lead investigator Chris Serino wanted to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter after interviewing him on the night he shot Trayvon Martin, 17.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674

The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-shooter-teenager-gun/story?id=16000239) recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-attorney-friend-speak-trayvon-martin-incident/story?id=15999256) be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/17270330/lead-inestigator-wanted-to-press-charges-in-trayvon-case

According to ABC News, lead investigator Chris Serino wanted to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter after interviewing him on the night he shot Trayvon Martin, 17.


ABC News reported (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T3NhR811P6K) the lead homicide investigator, Chris Serino, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter, but the state attorney’s office felt there was not enough evidence to bring a case. He filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night Trayvon was killed, saying he did not believe Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.


Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/29/report-police-initially-wanted-to-make-arrest-in-trayvon-martin-case/#ixzz1uEiHnDxf

----------

Is that enough?

I think the point is that all those references lead back to ABC News. And the ABC News sources are not identified nor are they even listed as being affiliated with LE.

IMO, the words out of Serino's mouth contradicting these reports are, at this time, more compelling than unnamed sources. Perhaps Serino will get on the stand and change his story but that remains to be seen.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

suzihawk
05-07-2012, 09:25 PM
I think the point is that all those references lead back to ABC News. And the ABC News sources are not identified nor are they even listed as being affiliated with LE.

IMO, the words out of Serino's mouth contradicting these reports are, at this time, more compelling than unnamed sources. Perhaps Serino will get on the stand and change his story but that remains to be seen.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

She asked for links. I provided them. I certainly don't expect her (or you) to agree with them.

vlpate
05-07-2012, 09:44 PM
She asked for links. I provided them. I certainly don't expect her (or you) to agree with them.

Maybe you missed the qualifier? It was a long post, so understandable.


BEM: Any links to those reports in late March that aren't parroting ABC's initial report?"

It's pointless to agree or disagree with something that has clearly been debunked as a lie.

Thank you for going to the trouble anyway!

Phoenixfla
05-07-2012, 09:51 PM
She asked for links. I provided them. I certainly don't expect her (or you) to agree with them.

Respectfully, I understood what vlpate was saying also. The point she/he was making is that ALL the articles go back to the ABC News report. ABC did not list ANY sources for saying that Serino wanted to press charges. They said it, everyone repeated it, but that does not necessarily make it true.

One thing I find fascinating is looking back through the initial articles and seeing the wildly inaccurate reporting in them. Its just crazy.

pcrum12
05-08-2012, 05:17 AM
So. no link that directly sources Lee, Wolfinger, Serino, FBI, Special Prosecutor, anyone in LE, that says Serino wanted to arrest GZ?

BEM: Any links to those reports in late March that aren't parroting ABC's initial report?

April 2nd OS LINK (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency)
"Benjamin Crump sent a formal request to the federal agency Monday, saying he believes Wolfinger and police Chief Bill Lee Jr. met Feb. 26 and overruled a homicide investigator's recommendation that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter.

Monday afternoon, Wolfinger said there was no meeting and that the letter was based on "outright lies". He also denounced "those spreading … irresponsible rhetoric".

<snip>
Some news agencies have reported that Sanford's lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger's office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.
<snip>
Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense."

From the defense perspective, this is an important admission by the lead investigator who has not stepped down, nor has he been terminated."

Bold emphasis mine.

:tyou:

AJ Noiter
05-08-2012, 07:38 AM
I don't think the Florida Bar would take too kindly if MOM were to complain. She did the right thing. Plus it opens up the possibility that somewhere right in the middle of the trial MOM may say....I want this judge to recluse herself......let's start over. I think it's an ethics matter. Some have it, some don't. jmo

I can agree with that. I do believe Mr. O'Mara did ask her to recuse herself, in a quick google search I found a number of articles, this is the first.



On Monday afternoon, Zimmerman’s lawyers filed a motion asking the trial judge, Jessica Recksiedler, to remove herself from the case due to an alleged conflict of interest. But the contents of that motion are not available from the court, because of a separate judge’s decision last Thursday—the day after Zimmerman’s arrest—to seal virtually every record in the court docket.
thedailybeast.com (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/16/zimmerman-s-lawyers-ask-judge-to-recuse-herself-records-sealed.html)

LambChop
05-08-2012, 07:49 AM
I can agree with that. I do believe Mr. O'Mara did ask her to recuse herself, in a quick google search I found a number of articles, this is the first.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/17526581/judge-steps-down-from-trayvon-martin-case

I believe her plans were to step down because of her husband from what I remember. MOM filed the paperwork to confirm GZ did not want her as his judge. jmo

Elley Mae
05-08-2012, 08:15 AM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/13/2746363/judge-in-george-zimmerman-murder.html#storylink=misearch

The judge asked the attorneys to file motions before an April 20 scheduled bond hearing if they wish for her to step down .

bbm
I saw it as her waiting for the request from MOM to step down. jmo

cityslick
05-08-2012, 08:52 AM
<snipped>

http://www.kltv.com/story/17270330/lead-inestigator-wanted-to-press-charges-in-trayvon-case

According to ABC News, lead investigator Chris Serino wanted to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter after interviewing him on the night he shot Trayvon Martin, 17.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674

The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-shooter-teenager-gun/story?id=16000239) recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-attorney-friend-speak-trayvon-martin-incident/story?id=15999256) be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/17270330/lead-inestigator-wanted-to-press-charges-in-trayvon-case

According to ABC News, lead investigator Chris Serino wanted to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter after interviewing him on the night he shot Trayvon Martin, 17.


ABC News reported (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T3NhR811P6K) the lead homicide investigator, Chris Serino, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter, but the state attorney’s office felt there was not enough evidence to bring a case. He filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night Trayvon was killed, saying he did not believe Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.


Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/29/report-police-initially-wanted-to-make-arrest-in-trayvon-martin-case/#ixzz1uEiHnDxf

----------

Is that enough?

BBM

I'm going to make an assumption that this affidavit has not been made public yet (the one filed by Serino on the 26th)? My question is, why not? Once we get a doc dump, I fully expect that affidavit to be made public and if it's not, then I can't take that ABC report as factual.

LiveLaughLuv
05-09-2012, 11:45 AM
http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

Arraignment video up...court date set August, 8, 2012 8:30am...just a few seconds..

Click on 5/8/2012
Arraignment video

Sherbie
05-10-2012, 09:30 PM
Not sure where this should go, but Piers Morgan has Mark NeJame on now with an "exclusive" photo. It's a picture of Zimmerman's great-grandfather, who is black, and his grandmother, who is half-black and Latina. NeJame explained how he came by the photo, but I didn't really understand what he said (guessing someone in the family gave it to him or to someone else who passed it on).

Not really very newsy, but for anyone interested, I think the show re-airs at midnight ET, and I'm guessing CNN will at some point have the photo up on the website.

ladonna
05-10-2012, 09:40 PM
Mark Nejames was just on Pier Morgan and produced a photo of GZ's, black Grandfather, half black grandmother, and mother. He said his position has changed on this case due to this photo.

Reader
05-10-2012, 09:48 PM
Mark Nejames was just on Pier Morgan and produced a photo of GZ's, black Grandfather, half black grandmother, and mother. He said his position has changed on this case due to this photo.

I never knew what his position was before...how has it changed and why would these photos influence him?

Were they the same ones from the Reuters article?

TIA

ladonna
05-10-2012, 10:12 PM
I never knew what his position was before...how has it changed and why would these photos influence him?

Were they the same ones from the Reuters article?

TIA

I need to correct that it was GZ great grandfather...I believe MN's point was that it wasn't a racial issue. No, this photo was never shown before according to Mark.

highflyer
05-10-2012, 10:22 PM
I need to correct that it was GZ great grandfather...I believe MN's point was that it wasn't a racial issue. No, this photo was never shown before according to Mark.

How does some old photo of someone's great grandfather change whether it was a racial issue? That makes no sense.

vlpate
05-10-2012, 10:43 PM
George Zimmerman mixed race photo:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#/video/bestoftv/2012/05/11/pmt-mark-nejame-zimmerman-famiy-photo.cnn

vlpate
05-10-2012, 10:48 PM
How does some old photo of someone's great grandfather change whether it was a racial issue? That makes no sense.

It's actually a picture of his mother, sitting on her black grandfather's knee. I would think it's obvious how it changes the race issue. One would hope to hear the end of TM being profiled for "walking black".

One would hope.

norest4thewicked
05-10-2012, 10:52 PM
It's actually a picture of his mother, sitting on her black grandfather's knee. I would think it's obvious how it changes the race issue. One would hope to hear the end of TM being profiled for "walking black".

One would hope.

I guess that kinda throws a wrench in the idea that Zimmerman was following Trayvon because he was black.

highflyer
05-10-2012, 10:56 PM
It's actually a picture of his mother, sitting on her black grandfather's knee. I would think it's obvious how it changes the race issue. One would hope to hear the end of TM being profiled for "walking black".

One would hope.

That has nothing to do with George Zimmerman's feelings about anyone. We've already read about his feelings toward Mexican people on his Myspace page.

katydid23
05-10-2012, 10:59 PM
That has nothing to do with George Zimmerman's feelings about anyone. We've already read about his feelings toward Mexican people on his Myspace page.

He was talking about Mexican gangs, not Mexican people in general. He was talking about the gang bangers that pull knives on innocent passersby, and the gangbangers that mess with peoples cars, and car jack and stuff like that.