View Full Version : 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #36
SoSueMe
05-03-2012, 09:32 AM
Members are allowed to discuss both sides of this case.
Trayvon Martin was a minor and a victim in this case. Please treat him as such. You may discuss Trayvon and his actions on the night of his death, but you may not bash or use name calling, such as the word "thug" when referencing Trayvon.
We are not allowing Trayvon Martin's Twitter account in its entirety to be posted due to his minor status. We will allow excerpts of his Twitter account as reported in MSM with an appropriate link.
George Zimmerman has been charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin and may be sleuthed. Mr. Zimmerman is not a minor and therefore, his social media accounts are allowed, if validated.
Posts containing snark, bashing or name calling of either party will be removed without notice to the member.
Benjamin Crump and Mark O'Mara are attorneys in this case and they will be treated with respect on our forum. You may post and question their statements and their actions, but you will do it respectfully.
Please submit topical thread requests and they will be approved once they are determined to be an appropriate topic for discussion.
If you wish to discuss this case with less restriction, please check out our Subject Related Unmoderated discussion at:
Link to Trayvon Martin Sound Off
Previous General Discussion Threads:
Thread #1 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165269&highlight=Trayvon) Thread #2 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166351&highlight=Trayvon+martin)
Thread #3 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166513&highlight=Trayvon+martin) Thread #4 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166660&highlight=Trayvon+martin)
Thread #5 Thread #6 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166872&highlight=Trayvon+Martin)
Thread #7 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167001&highlight=Trayvon+Martin) Thread #8 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167151&highlight=y%2Fo+teen)
Thread #9 Thread #10
Thread #11 Thread #12
Thread #13 Thread #14
Thread #15 Thread #16
Thread #17 Thread #18
Thread #19 Thread #20
Thread #21 Thread #22
Thread #23 Thread #24
Thread #25 Thread #26
Thread #27 Thread #28
Thread #29 Thread #30
Thread #31 Thread #32
Thread #33 Thread #34
Thread #35
saguaro
05-03-2012, 09:34 AM
Open for business?
SoSueMe
05-03-2012, 09:46 AM
Open for business?
Yes, post away. :)
LynnM
05-03-2012, 09:47 AM
Just catching up this morning and I noticed that people were wondering where the information came from that Trayvon was an A and B student. It came from his English teacher who "described Trayvon, a junior, as an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317_1_shooting-death-english-teacher-uncle
LambChop
05-03-2012, 09:53 AM
[Quote from last thread] I just find this method of thinking hilarious. I can only imagine how the conversation would be (on here and elsewhere) if he had talked to and hired a lawyer on day one, when he got arrested. The same people saying he should of got a lawyer that night would be criticizing that decision if it actually happened, saying it makes him look guilty, what does he need a lawyer for, etc, etc, etc.
I think an attorney would have been in order since he admitted to LE he shot TM and it would have been advisable. I know most people would have gone for the attorney once you are cuffed an attorney is in order. What surprises me is the father did not recommend one be there but instead it appears RZ, SR. thought he could "handle the matter himself." That does not seem odd to anyone????? jmo
waltzingmatilda
05-03-2012, 09:53 AM
my reply to JustK's post from previous thread
GZ probably had a lawyer for his other felony charges from 2005. A lot of people, at age 28, have had to hire a lawyer for one thing or another. And, I bet a lot of people have the lawyer's number in their phone. In today's environment, IMO, everyone should keep the name and number of a good lawyer in their cellphone.
There is an interview with one of his former attys from 2005 out there somewhere. She was on one of the TH shows, HLN IIRC. She said GZ was very involved in his defense case. Does anyone remember this interview? Or did I dream it?:P
JMO, MOO, etc.
wm
Velouria
05-03-2012, 09:54 AM
From previous thread:
Originally posted by cityslick:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tehcloser http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7866928#post7866928)
I talk to my 30 and 32 yo daughters daily. And usually my son...but I still think that most grown up, responsible adults would first call their SO and/or a lawyer. Sure they would talk to their parents about it, but after they had already started taking care of it themselves.
Well his father was a magistrate, perhaps he called him because he would be knowledgeable on how to handle the situation. But then again, wouldn't he already know how to handle the situation?
After all, this was not George's first time at the rodeo. :cowboy:
LynnM
05-03-2012, 09:57 AM
my reply to JustK's post from previous thread
There is an interview with one of his former attys from 2005 out there somewhere. She was on one of the TH shows, HLN IIRC. She said GZ was very involved in his defense case. Does anyone remember this interview? Or did I dream it?:P
JMO, MOO, etc.
wm
I remember it! It was an HLN show, either Vinnie Politan or Jane Velez-Mitchell.
waltzingmatilda
05-03-2012, 09:57 AM
Just catching up this morning and I noticed that people were wondering where the information came from that Trayvon was an A and B student. It came from his English teacher who "described Trayvon, a junior, as an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317_1_shooting-death-english-teacher-uncle
Thank you, LynnM! :rocker:
Kimberlyd125
05-03-2012, 09:58 AM
I believe it was his first time shooting someone and claiming self defense.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 10:01 AM
cityslick
Registered User Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,672
I just find this method of thinking hilarious. I can only imagine how the conversation would be (on here and elsewhere) if he had talked to and hired a lawyer on day one, when he got arrested. The same people saying he should of got a lawyer that night would be criticizing that decision if it actually happened, saying it makes him look guilty, what does he need a lawyer for, etc, etc, etc.
I recognize the conversations that we've had here lots of times.
However, I don't think it would have been very prominent in this case because there is an important difference imo. Many of the other cases with this discussion going on have been missing persons and murders in which the lawyered up person insists that he knows nothing and is completely innocent and wants the crime solved and the perp arrested as soon as possible. If you then lawyer up and refuse to answer questions that might help the police in their investigations it looks odd.
However, George Zimmerman shot someone. He admits that. That in itself means he needs a lawyer. I do not believe that too many people would go through this argument with people who already admitted that they did something. It's usually the ones who deny deny deny. GZ has a good case of needing a lawyer to help him navigate the legal system and establish his defense strategy.
I think most people are intelligent enough to recognize this is necessary to prevent miscarriages of justice in self defense cases and just to ensure everything goes fairly and there won't be costly problems with appeals even if the defendant admits that he's guilty as sin.
waltzingmatilda
05-03-2012, 10:06 AM
I remember it! It was an HLN show, either Vinnie Politan or Jane Velez-Mitchell.
Thanks! I knew I saw it. I've googled it and cannot find it. Nor do I have much time to search today. I'll search more when things aren't so hectic around here.
wm
lauriej
05-03-2012, 10:10 AM
There is an interview with one of his former attys from 2005 out there somewhere. She was on one of the TH shows, HLN IIRC. She said GZ was very involved in his defense case. Does anyone remember this interview? Or did I dream it?:P
JMO, MOO, etc.
wm
http://fox8.com/2012/04/11/george-zimmerman-charged-with-murder/
Zahra Umansky, an attorney who represented Zimmerman on 2005 charges of assaulting an officer and resisting arrest after an incident in a local bar — charges which were later dismissed — recalled he was actively involved in his defense, more so than other youths at that age might be. “He was very concerned,” she said.
She characterized Zimmerman as having a tendency to not accept what he’s told at face value. “He wants to take things and find out what’s going on. … He’s curious,” she said.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 10:20 AM
Do lawyers usually remember their clients from six or seven years ago or does it mean t
that GZ stood out?
IANAL but I remember hardly any of my clients from several years ago unless there was something extraordinary about them.
LiveLaughLuv
05-03-2012, 10:20 AM
my reply to JustK's post from previous thread
There is an interview with one of his former attys from 2005 out there somewhere. She was on one of the TH shows, HLN IIRC. She said GZ was very involved in his defense case. Does anyone remember this interview? Or did I dream it?:P
JMO, MOO, etc.
wm
I remember it! It was an HLN show, either Vinnie Politan or Jane Velez-Mitchell.
Zahra Umansky, an attorney who represented Zimmerman on 2005 charges of assaulting an officer and resisting arrest after an incident in a local bar — charges which were later dismissed — recalled he was actively involved in his defense, more so than other youths at that age might be. “He was very concerned,” she said.
She characterized Zimmerman as having a tendency to not accept what he’s told at face value. “He wants to take things and find out what’s going on. … He’s curious,” she said.
http://fox6now.com/2012/04/12/george-zimmermans-attorney-to-ask-for-bail/
tpgks
05-03-2012, 10:22 AM
Just catching up this morning and I noticed that people were wondering where the information came from that Trayvon was an A and B student. It came from his English teacher who "described Trayvon, a junior, as an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317_1_shooting-death-english-teacher-uncle
This same teacher also said that
Trayvon was under a five-day suspension when he was shot that Sunday night, but Kypriss said it was due to tardiness and not misbehavior.
"Trayvon was not a violent or dangerous child. He was not known for misbehaving," the teacher said. "He was suspended because he was late too many times."
which we know now, was a lie.
raeann
05-03-2012, 10:26 AM
This same teacher also said that
which we know now, was a lie.
IMO....accusing this teacher of lying is extremely unjustified. The suspension HAS been said to be for tardies by a number of sources. The "unauthorized" release of records can certainly not be given priority over a teacher's statement, and suspensions can be issued for more than one reason. It is NOT an either/or situation.
pcrum12
05-03-2012, 10:27 AM
IMO I don't see any reason why GZ calling his father should be seen as ridiculous. Considering the situation, I definitely would have called my ex-magistrate judge father FIRST thing. I do not see that as him thinking daddy can get me out of this, but that dad is a magistrate/judge and can advise me. IMO I see nothing hinky about this.
waltzingmatilda
05-03-2012, 10:29 AM
http://fox8.com/2012/04/11/george-zimmerman-charged-with-murder/
Zahra Umansky, an attorney who represented Zimmerman on 2005 charges of assaulting an officer and resisting arrest after an incident in a local bar — charges which were later dismissed — recalled he was actively involved in his defense, more so than other youths at that age might be. “He was very concerned,” she said.
She characterized Zimmerman as having a tendency to not accept what he’s told at face value. “He wants to take things and find out what’s going on. … He’s curious,” she said.
Thanks much! I googled ZU's name and your WS post was the eighth one listed, LOL!:rocker:
Velouria
05-03-2012, 10:29 AM
This same teacher also said that
Quote:
Trayvon was under a five-day suspension when he was shot that Sunday night, but Kypriss said it was due to tardiness and not misbehavior.
"Trayvon was not a violent or dangerous child. He was not known for misbehaving," the teacher said. "He was suspended because he was late too many times."
which we know now, was a lie.
It's a lie IF he deliberately misstated the reason for the suspension. I highly doubt however, that this teacher was directly involved in the disciplinary action against Trayvon. And it's very possible that teacher was misinformed by a fellow teacher or by school administrators. IMO.
JBean
05-03-2012, 10:33 AM
Do lawyers usually remember their clients from six or seven years ago or does it mean t
that GZ stood out?
IANAL but I remember hardly any of my clients from several years ago unless there was something extraordinary about them.Think it is hard to broadbrush all lawyers as either having or not having the ability to remember someone.
Maybe , as you say, there was something extraordinary about him in either a good or bad way.
Maybe she re read his file to refresh or she remembers all her clients. Maybe she liked him or she has a good long term memory. I can think of a lot of reasons to remember someone.
JMHO of course.
Aedrys
05-03-2012, 10:34 AM
It's a lie IF he deliberately misstated the reason for the suspension. I highly doubt however, that this teacher was directly involved in the disciplinary action against Trayvon. And it's very possible that teacher was misinformed by a fellow teacher or by school administrators. IMO.
Exactly. This teacher is not going to know the exact reason for Trayvon's suspension unless he was directly involved with it. I highly doubt this teacher is covering for Trayvon being violent. I say again, there is absolutely nothing in Trayvon's past to suggest he was a violent in the least. He was not out for blood that night. One teacher's misinformation does not make that a fact. Sheesh.
tpgks
05-03-2012, 10:34 AM
IMO....accusing this teacher of lying is extremely unjustified. The suspension HAS been said to be for tardies by a number of sources. The "unauthorized" release of records can certainly not be given priority over a teacher's statement, and suspensions can be issued for more than one reason. It is NOT an either/or situation.
Unjustified? Accusing? The teacher DID lie! If the teacher lied about the reason/length of suspension it is not a stretch to think that she *might* be lying about Trayvon's grades and character. All of the other "sources" were also lying when they claimed that Trayvon was suspended for tardies. Crump and at least Tracy knew the truth but kept telling the 5 day/tardy story because it did not fit the "image" they were selling to the MSM.
Velouria
05-03-2012, 10:34 AM
IMO I don't see any reason why GZ calling his father should be seen as ridiculous. Considering the situation, I definitely would have called my ex-magistrate judge father FIRST thing. I do not see that as him thinking daddy can get me out of this, but that dad is a magistrate/judge and can advise me. IMO I see nothing hinky about this.
I'm just glad he didn't call Sean Hannity first.
I can see why he would call his father if in fact he didn't have ready access to an attorney's number. And I honestly can't blame him for not wanting to open the phone book and point with his eyes shut.
tpgks
05-03-2012, 10:35 AM
It's a lie IF he deliberately misstated the reason for the suspension. I highly doubt however, that this teacher was directly involved in the disciplinary action against Trayvon. And it's very possible that teacher was misinformed by a fellow teacher or by school administrators. IMO.
Then the teacher should not have spoken on the matter if he was only going on rumors.
Exactly. This teacher is not going to know the exact reason for Trayvon's suspension unless he was directly involved with it. I highly doubt this teacher is covering for Trayvon being violent. I say again, there is absolutely nothing in Trayvon's past to suggest he was a violent in the least. He was not out for blood that night. One teacher's misinformation does not make that a fact. Sheesh.
If the teacher is not going to know the exact reason for the suspension, then how did he come up with tardies? Did he just pull it out of thin air? Was he following the MSM narrative? Did Crump or Jackson talk to him?
Velouria
05-03-2012, 10:37 AM
Unjustified? Accusing? The teacher DID lie! If the teacher lied about the reason/length of suspension it is not a stretch to think that she *might* be lying about Trayvon's grades and character. All of the other "sources" were also lying when they claimed that Trayvon was suspended for tardies. Crump and at least Tracy knew the truth but kept telling the 5 day/tardy story because it did not fit the "image" they were selling to the MSM.
By that token, we should throw out all five of Zimmerman's statements recounting the night of the shooting. After all, not only did he lie, he lied under oath about not knowing how old Trayvon was.
Aedrys
05-03-2012, 10:39 AM
Then the teacher should not have spoken on the matter if he was only going on rumors.
So it's all a big conspiracy to cover for Trayvon? No one should try to speak out on Trayvon's behalf? He deserved to die? It seems like a lot of people genuinely like Trayvon. I don't see a problem with them speaking up for him since he can't speak up for himself anymore. But it's okay for GZ and everyone who knew him to talk about GZ and make him seem pure as the fallen snow? Both of them deserve to have people defend them. Trayvon is not less deserving here. There is no large conspiracy to frame GZ. I think I need to go find a tinfoil hat...
grammieto5
05-03-2012, 10:39 AM
So I've been wondering, what was it about Trayvon that first made GZ notice him? What was it that Trayvon was doing that made GZ think he was acting suspicious ?
Velouria
05-03-2012, 10:40 AM
Then the teacher should not have spoken on the matter if he was only going on rumors.
Seems to me there are plenty of individuals speaking to the media and stating rumors and theories as fact, and most of them are speaking in defense of GZ.
:moo:
JBean
05-03-2012, 10:40 AM
Unjustified? Accusing? The teacher DID lie! If the teacher lied about the reason/length of suspension it is not a stretch to think that she *might* be lying about Trayvon's grades and character. All of the other "sources" were also lying when they claimed that Trayvon was suspended for tardies. Crump and at least Tracy knew the truth but kept telling the 5 day/tardy story because it did not fit the "image" they were selling to the MSM.
It may have been the teachers understanding of the suspension. This is one of those issues that may not merit going around and around unless we find solid verification that the teacher was being dishonest. Maybe she heard from those *sources* and carried the info. But calling the teacher a liar is a stretch and name calling at this point. Call the teacher careless perhaps if she did not have firsthand knowledge.
So let's raise the level and be careful about characterizing peripheral players that are not integral to the case at this point.
Just K
05-03-2012, 10:41 AM
No authentic school record has been cited as the source of Trayvon's academic record/history. To date the public is not privy to that record. Until we are, there is no way to document any of this without the "official transcript."
tpgks
05-03-2012, 10:41 AM
By that token, we should throw out all five of Zimmerman's statements recounting the night of the shooting. After all, not only did he lie, he lied under oath about not knowing how old Trayvon was.
If there are actually five statements (which has not been confirmed, AFAIK) then the most weight should be on the statements that are given under oath. So in a round-a-bout way, I guess my answer would be yes.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 10:42 AM
http://fox8.com/2012/04/11/george-zimmerman-charged-with-murder/
Zahra Umansky, an attorney who represented Zimmerman on 2005 charges of assaulting an officer and resisting arrest after an incident in a local bar — charges which were later dismissed — recalled he was actively involved in his defense, more so than other youths at that age might be. “He was very concerned,” she said.
She characterized Zimmerman as having a tendency to not accept what he’s told at face value. “He wants to take things and find out what’s going on. … He’s curious,” she said.
Sounds like he would have fit in well here at WS. :)
LiveLaughLuv
05-03-2012, 10:44 AM
I believe it was his first time shooting someone and claiming self defense.
That is correct but it's always someone elses fault that GZ gets himself into things, like with his ex fiance..
Like with the ATF agent who he claims never ID'd himself but saw his friend in handcuffs, cussed the agent and pushed him...it's always someone elses fault...his pattern of not taking responsibility for any of his actions seem to go towards his personality..
And his father at the the bond hearing saying, only when he's provoked but quickly added, he turns the other cheek...which I don't believe is the truth..
They all seem to favor blaming someone else for GZ's actions...:banghead:
Emma Peel
05-03-2012, 10:44 AM
So I've been wondering, what was it about Trayvon that first made GZ notice him? What was it that Trayvon was doing that made GZ think he was acting suspicious ?
See 911 tape. ;)
GZ describes how TM is acting suspicious while walking/running and how "they" always get away.
Anything about TM that GZ may have noticed that made GZ suspicious, other than what GZ described on the 911 - would be pure conjecture. :cow:
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 10:45 AM
IMO nobody at schools should make public comments about the disciplinary actions their students face and the reasons thereof. That sort of thing should be mostly confidential imo.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 10:46 AM
IMO....accusing this teacher of lying is extremely unjustified. The suspension HAS been said to be for tardies by a number of sources. The "unauthorized" release of records can certainly not be given priority over a teacher's statement, and suspensions can be issued for more than one reason. It is NOT an either/or situation.
Possibly, but I personally have never heard of a student being suspended for tardyness. It seems counterproductive to prevent a student from attending school as punishment for not attending school. Detention seems like a better punishment for tardyness. Suspension for tardyness does not pass the sniff test for me.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 10:46 AM
Unjustified? Accusing? The teacher DID lie! If the teacher lied about the reason/length of suspension it is not a stretch to think that she *might* be lying about Trayvon's grades and character. All of the other "sources" were also lying when they claimed that Trayvon was suspended for tardies. Crump and at least Tracy knew the truth but kept telling the 5 day/tardy story because it did not fit the "image" they were selling to the MSM.
I would think the teacher would have reason to know about his grades first hand. As far as his suspension I don't think they are permitted to release that information so it may have been her attempt to tell the media it was nothing serious, such as tardiness, etc. without her being too specific. I would not think the teacher deliberately lied, just if you insist on knowing it wasn't for anything serious. jmo
Aedrys
05-03-2012, 10:47 AM
If there are actually five statements (which has not been confirmed, AFAIK) then the most weight should be on the statements that are given under oath. So in a round-a-bout way, I guess my answer would be yes.
Then the same weight should be given to TM's school record, which none of us can see, so none of us know for sure what he was suspended for. We haven't seen GZ's actual police statements either. How we can judge the teacher but throw out GZ's five statements? This is so lopsided it's not even funny.
Concerned Papa
05-03-2012, 10:47 AM
Remember when Robert Zimmerman said this during his Sean Hannity interview?
ZIMMERMAN: From where George's vehicle was, there's a sidewalk that goes to the next street over. Off of that sidewalk there's another sidewalk that goes between two rows of townhomes……George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going. [2:08]
ZIMMERMAN: When the dispatcher said we know longer need you to do that, and George acknowledged OK. He no longer knew where Trayvon was. [2:26]
He continued walking down the sidewalk directly in front of him to the next street to get an address. He got an address.
He was walking back to his vehicle.
Trayvon came from his left side…from that area where the sidewalks meet…and started beating him.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/05/exclusive-george-zimmermans-father-defends-son-trayvon-martin-shooting?page=2#ixzz1svJVUFyf
It seems clear that he's saying the "attack" happened "from that area where the sidewalks meet", doesn't it?
Now, remember witness John's statement?
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.
Each of the units have 10' long privacy screen fences at their rear demising lines.
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMFieldVision1.png
Take at look at the layout for witness John's unit and the relationship of the sliding glass doors to these privacy fences I have drawn in red. Also notice the narrow upstairs bathroom window:
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMJohn2updwn-1.jpg
http://www.407re.com/RetreatatTwinLakes
Now notice the image in the attachment below:
It seems to me that both of these vantage points would have restricted ability to see the area where Robert Zimmerman, and apparently George Zimmerman, have said this attack/beating occurred.
Time will tell who's right and who's wrong in this deal, but something doesn't jive with these two stories.
LiveLaughLuv
05-03-2012, 10:48 AM
No authentic school record has been cited as the source of Trayvon's academic record/history. To date the public is not privy to that record. Until we are, there is no way to document any of this without the "official transcript."
and keep in mind, SPD is under investigation for 'leaking' this info about TM and his school suspensions...It came at the time the SPD came under fire. It was done viciously, is my belief by the police officer who let it leak out as it did..
Goes in line with defense tactics of blaming the victim not the perp..:maddening:
LambChop
05-03-2012, 10:48 AM
IMO nobody at schools should make public comments about the disciplinary actions their students face and the reasons thereof. That sort of thing should be mostly confidential imo.
They are confidential and the records were released by someone who did not have permission to do so from what I understand. jmo
JBean
05-03-2012, 10:49 AM
Possibly, but I personally have never heard of a student being suspended for tardyness. It seems counterproductive to prevent a student from attending school as punishment for not attending school. Detention seems like a better punishment for tardyness. Suspension for tardyness does not pass the sniff test for me.
This would be a good place to check if anyone is so inclined:
http://www.neola.com/miamidade-fl/pdf/scsc.pdf
tpgks
05-03-2012, 10:55 AM
So it's all a big conspiracy to cover for Trayvon? No one should try to speak out on Trayvon's behalf? He deserved to die? It seems like a lot of people genuinely like Trayvon. I don't see a problem with them speaking up for him since he can't speak up for himself anymore. But it's okay for GZ and everyone who knew him to talk about GZ and make him seem pure as the fallen snow? Both of them deserve to have people defend them. Trayvon is not less deserving here. There is no large conspiracy to frame GZ. I think I need to go find a tinfoil hat...
Personally, I think it was incredibly stupid for GZs family to go to the media to try to tell his story. I think it is disingenuous of them to so fervently defend him without knowing both sides of the story. Trayvon has had millions of people to speak up for him, I do not have a problem with that, for the most part. What I have a problem with are certain players, and the media (f*in coons ((CNN)) and editing the 911 tape ((NBC)), etc) spinning this story to fit the narrative that it wants, which was an evil white racist hunted down and killed a minor because he was black. This includes people who willingly lie, either by omission, or "accident" such as the teacher.
LiveLaughLuv
05-03-2012, 10:55 AM
Now notice the image in the attachment below:
It seems to me that both of these vantage points would have restricted ability to see the area where Robert Zimmerman, and apparently George Zimmerman, have said this attack/beating occurred.
Time will tell who's right and who's wrong in this deal, but something doesn't jive with these two stories
I always have in the back of my mind how eye witness accounts are faulty. Anyone who has been convicted due to eyewitness accounts have eventually been cleared by DNA evidence..
So, I believe to defer to the forensic evidence would be more fruitful than faulty eyewitness accounts..which is what MOM is also waiting for before the defense lays that claim to SYG defense...he wants to see what evidence the state has before he can lay out a defense...
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 10:56 AM
So it's all a big conspiracy to cover for Trayvon? No one should try to speak out on Trayvon's behalf? He deserved to die? It seems like a lot of people genuinely like Trayvon. I don't see a problem with them speaking up for him since he can't speak up for himself anymore. But it's okay for GZ and everyone who knew him to talk about GZ and make him seem pure as the fallen snow? Both of them deserve to have people defend them. Trayvon is not less deserving here. There is no large conspiracy to frame GZ. I think I need to go find a tinfoil hat...
Thats debateable.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 10:57 AM
Seems to me there are plenty of individuals speaking to the media and stating rumors and theories as fact, and most of them are speaking in defense of GZ.
:moo:
Feel free to link and we can discuss them here.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 10:59 AM
It may have been the teachers understanding of the suspension. This is one of those issues that may not merit going around and around unless we find solid verification that the teacher was being dishonest. Maybe she heard from those *sources* and carried the info. But calling the teacher a liar is a stretch and name calling at this point. Call the teacher careless perhaps if she did not have firsthand knowledge.
So let's raise the level and be careful about characterizing peripheral players that are not integral to the case at this point.
I agree that we should not be calling the teacher a liar, however I believe the teacher SHOULD have know why he was suspended. The school should have told all his teachers privately why their student was suspended. Perhaps whatever he was doing to cause the suspension could corrected by the help of those teachers.
LiveLaughLuv
05-03-2012, 11:01 AM
If there are actually five statements (which has not been confirmed, AFAIK) then the most weight should be on the statements that are given under oath. So in a round-a-bout way, I guess my answer would be yes.
Then you should relisten to the bond hearing...DeLaRionda states it then, he confronts GZ on the five different versions he gave...
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 11:01 AM
No authentic school record has been cited as the source of Trayvon's academic record/history. To date the public is not privy to that record. Until we are, there is no way to document any of this without the "official transcript."
They have been reported in the MSM. We have not seen any of GZ statements, but we talk about them daily.
saguaro
05-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Personally, I think it was incredibly stupid for GZs family to go to the media to try to tell his story. I think it is disingenuous of them to so fervently defend him without knowing both sides of the story. Trayvon has had millions of people to speak up for him, I do not have a problem with that, for the most part. What I have a problem with are certain players, and the media (f*in coons ((CNN)) and editing the 911 tape ((NBC)), etc) spinning this story to fit the narrative that it wants, which was an evil white racist hunted down and killed a minor because he was black. This includes people who willingly lie, either by omission, or "accident" such as the teacher.
BBM!
Before many even knew any facts.
I don't think it's disingenuous for a family member to speak up for their child or sibling.
LynnM
05-03-2012, 11:04 AM
This would be a good place to check if anyone is so inclined:
http://www.neola.com/miamidade-fl/pdf/scsc.pdf
Thanks you for the link! Tardiness is a Level One misbehavior and not normally subject to Plan Two sanctions such as a suspension for one to five days. However, the handbook notes that "Principals may authorize
use of PLAN II for repeated, serious or habitual Level I infractions."
Elley Mae
05-03-2012, 11:05 AM
Trayvon was 6-foot-3, 140 pounds, a former Optimist League football player with a narrow frame and a voracious appetite.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html#storylink=cpy
cityslick
05-03-2012, 11:07 AM
Remember when Robert Zimmerman said this during his Sean Hannity interview?
It seems clear that he's saying the "attack" happened "from that area where the sidewalks meet", doesn't it?
Now, remember witness John's statement?
Each of the units have 10' long privacy screen fences at their rear demising lines.
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMFieldVision1.png
Take at look at the layout for witness John's unit and the relationship of the sliding glass doors to these privacy fences I have drawn in red. Also notice the narrow upstairs bathroom window:
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMJohn2updwn-1.jpg
http://www.407re.com/RetreatatTwinLakes
Now notice the image in the attachment below:
It seems to me that both of these vantage points would have restricted ability to see the area where Robert Zimmerman, and apparently George Zimmerman, have said this attack/beating occurred.
Time will tell who's right and who's wrong in this deal, but something doesn't jive with these two stories.
How are you determining his FOV from his window? Why is it narrow on the left side but not the right? He could of been standing on the far right of the window and still see pretty well to the left IMO.
tpgks
05-03-2012, 11:07 AM
Then the same weight should be given to TM's school record, which none of us can see, so none of us know for sure what he was suspended for. We haven't seen GZ's actual police statements either. How we can judge the teacher but throw out GZ's five statements? This is so lopsided it's not even funny.
Except for Crump confirming that it was for the vandalism.
A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
If O'mara confirms something, it sure as hell has more weight in my mind than anything any of GZ's relatives say.
Kimberlyd125
05-03-2012, 11:08 AM
That is correct but it's always someone elses fault that GZ gets himself into things, like with his ex fiance..
Like with the ATF agent who he claims never ID'd himself but saw his friend in handcuffs, cussed the agent and pushed him...it's always someone elses fault...his pattern of not taking responsibility for any of his actions seem to go towards his personality..
And his father at the the bond hearing saying, only when he's provoked but quickly added, he turns the other cheek...which I don't believe is the truth..
They all seem to favor blaming someone else for GZ's actions...:banghead:
I was responding to a post stating GZ should be aware of how things would go down and should not have needed to call his father. (not his first time at the rodeo is how it was stated).
Nothing in my post pertains to anything other than that.
Certainly not placing blame.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 11:09 AM
Remember when Robert Zimmerman said this during his Sean Hannity interview?
It seems clear that he's saying the "attack" happened "from that area where the sidewalks meet", doesn't it?
Now, remember witness John's statement?
Each of the units have 10' long privacy screen fences at their rear demising lines.
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMFieldVision1.png
Take at look at the layout for witness John's unit and the relationship of the sliding glass doors to these privacy fences I have drawn in red. Also notice the narrow upstairs bathroom window:
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMJohn2updwn-1.jpg
http://www.407re.com/RetreatatTwinLakes
Now notice the image in the attachment below:
It seems to me that both of these vantage points would have restricted ability to see the area where Robert Zimmerman, and apparently George Zimmerman, have said this attack/beating occurred.
Time will tell who's right and who's wrong in this deal, but something doesn't jive with these two stories.
That is assuming that John did not go outside. I know we discussed this at length the other day, but was there anything definitively stating that John did not go outside?
(Nice work on the graphics by the way)
RANCH
05-03-2012, 11:20 AM
Then you should relisten to the bond hearing...DeLaRionda states it then, he confronts GZ on the five different versions he gave...
Five different versions of what? His whole story, a minor detail? What did de la Rionda say exactly?
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 11:21 AM
This would be a good place to check if anyone is so inclined:
http://www.neola.com/miamidade-fl/pdf/scsc.pdf
Thank you JBean for this wealth of information. I performed a full text search for “tardy” and “tardiness”, with no results.
I did, however, find what behaviors result in a 10 day suspension. It would have to be at least a “Level III” behavior, which are listed as:
LEVEL III
Offensive/Harmful Behaviors
• Assault/Threat against a non-staff member
• Breaking and Entering/Burglary
• Bullying (repeated harassment)*
• Disruption on campus/Disorderly conduct
• Fighting (serious)
• Harassment (Civil Rights)**
• Hazing (misdemeanor)
• Possession or use of alcohol and/or controlled
substances
• Possession of simulated weapons
• Sexual harassment**
• Trespassing
• Vandalism (major)
These behaviors would result in the following corrective strategies:
PLAN III
• Parent/guardian contact***
• Suspension from school for one to ten days****
• Permanent removal from class (placement review
committee decision required)
• Diversion Center
• Recommendation for alternative educational setting
• Recommendation for expulsion
**** Send written notice to parent/guardian within 24 hours via U.S. mail.
No where is tardiness listed as an offense that would result in suspension, especially for 10 days.
Concerned Papa
05-03-2012, 11:27 AM
How are you determining his FOV from his window? Why is it narrow on the left side but not the right?
As to which window, I going only on what the Fox35 reporter pointed out as the window in the video with John the next day. A link will have to wait until I get home. I have it bookmarked in that computer.
The field is more narrow on the right side due to the position of the sliding glass doors in relation to the adjacent privacy fence. The yellow line is drawn going past the end of the fence in red on the L/H side. The fence on the other side is farther away from the door edge, so the FOV is wider to that side.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 11:28 AM
Then you should relisten to the bond hearing...DeLaRionda states it then, he confronts GZ on the five different versions he gave...
Link please.
This is what was in the transcript:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?
JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.
O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?
ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.
grammieto5
05-03-2012, 11:28 AM
Yes, I have listened to the 911 call, many times. The more I listen to it the more I'm beginning to believe, 1-GZ's speach is slurred, 2-the clicking noises are from his gun. Trayvon never had a chance, as soon as GZ decided to go patrolling for someone. I believe everything GZ is saying to the 911 operator are lies. I believe Trayvon was just walking along on the sidewalk talking to his girl friend, just looking all around, (who does not look at everything while walking) just being a kid, a kid who had just barely turned 17 years old, I think of Trayvon as being more 16 then 17. I am beginning to wonder if the first thing GZ noticed about Trayvon was that Trayvon was AA :-(
JBean
05-03-2012, 11:30 AM
snipped for space
No where is tardiness listed as an offense that would result in suspension, especially for 10 days.
Thanks you for the link! Tardiness is a Level One misbehavior and not normally subject to Plan Two sanctions such as a suspension for one to five days. However, the handbook notes that "Principals may authorize
use of PLAN II for repeated, serious or habitual Level I infractions."
well help me here.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 11:30 AM
Thanks you for the link! Tardiness is a Level One misbehavior and not normally subject to Plan Two sanctions such as a suspension for one to five days. However, the handbook notes that "Principals may authorize
use of PLAN II for repeated, serious or habitual Level I infractions."
I looked again and I do not see tardiness as any of the Level I infractions. Please let me know where I missed it:
LEVEL I
Disruptive Behaviors
• Unauthorized location
• Confrontation with another student
• Cutting class
• Disruptive behavior (including behavior on the
school bus and at the school bus stop)
• Failure to comply with class and/or school rules
• Possession of items or materials that are inappropriate
for an educational setting *
• Inappropriate public display of affection
• Repeated use of profane or crude language (general,
not directed at someone)
• Unauthorized use of electronic devices
• Violation of dress code
Lovelymountains
05-03-2012, 11:30 AM
Unjustified? Accusing? The teacher DID lie! If the teacher lied about the reason/length of suspension it is not a stretch to think that she *might* be lying about Trayvon's grades and character. All of the other "sources" were also lying when they claimed that Trayvon was suspended for tardies. Crump and at least Tracy knew the truth but kept telling the 5 day/tardy story because it did not fit the "image" they were selling to the MSM.
Truthfulness or not truthfullness of the teacher's statement aside, I question the ethics of a teacher who would publically comment on a student's grades or reason for suspension. I suspect it to be a serious violation of privacy and perhaps a violation of privacy laws. ---IMO
Concerned Papa
05-03-2012, 11:32 AM
That is assuming that John did not go outside. I know we discussed this at length the other day, but was there anything definitively stating that John did not go outside?
(Nice work on the graphics by the way)
IDK, I'm trying not to assume anything, but who knows? His interview doesn't say, to my knowledge, anything definitive as to whether or not he went outside, only referencing his having locked the patio doors.
Lovelymountains
05-03-2012, 11:35 AM
So I've been wondering, what was it about Trayvon that first made GZ notice him? What was it that Trayvon was doing that made GZ think he was acting suspicious ?
I don't think Trayvon did anything to justify GZ's notice. It was all in Zimmerman's head, IMO.
cityslick
05-03-2012, 11:35 AM
IDK, I'm trying not to assume anything, but who knows? His interview doesn't say, to my knowledge, anything definitive as to whether or not he went outside, only referencing his having locked the patio doors.
Who was he telling to stop if he wasn't outside though? Was he still in his house, but with the door open when he yelled at them to stop? I'm trying to picture that and it seems weird.
ETA: If he already was in the house when he said 'stop I'm calling 911', why wouldn't he do it right then and there. As a matter of fact, why would he go upstairs anyway?
JBean
05-03-2012, 11:43 AM
I see different policies. what is the name of Trayvons school please.
LynnM
05-03-2012, 11:43 AM
I looked again and I do not see tardiness as any of the Level I infractions. Please let me know where I missed it:
It's on page 7: A Synopsis of Model Student Behavior: Level I". It says "Model students avoid arriving at school late." I assume that is subsumed under "Failure to comply with school or class rules" on "Behaviors and Ranges of Corrective Strategy" on page 15. I wouldn't think tardiness would fall at higher levels of misconduct.
cityslick
05-03-2012, 11:44 AM
It's on page 7: A Synopsis of Model Student Behavior: Level I". It says "Model students avoid arriving at school late." I assume that is subsumed under "Failure to comply with school or class rules" on "Behaviors and Ranges of Corrective Strategy" on page 15. I wouldn't think tardiness would fall at higher levels of misconduct.
So is it the understanding that he was suspended because of tardiness? What school suspends a kid for tardiness, even multiple times?
Elley Mae
05-03-2012, 11:45 AM
I see different policies. what is the name of Trayvons school please.
Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html#storylink=cpy
JBean
05-03-2012, 11:47 AM
Miami HS Clearly suspends for tardiness so I will check Trayvons HS now.
http://mhs.dadeschools.net/students_attendance_tardypolicy.html
LynnM
05-03-2012, 11:48 AM
So is it the understanding that he was suspended because of tardiness? What school suspends a kid for tardiness, even multiple times?
Well I don't know. I was simply indicating that suspension was a possible outcome of repeated tardiness under the policy guidelines which was what I thought people wanted to know.
rotterdam
05-03-2012, 11:48 AM
[Quote from last thread] I just find this method of thinking hilarious. I can only imagine how the conversation would be (on here and elsewhere) if he had talked to and hired a lawyer on day one, when he got arrested. The same people saying he should of got a lawyer that night would be criticizing that decision if it actually happened, saying it makes him look guilty, what does he need a lawyer for, etc, etc, etc.
I think an attorney would have been in order since he admitted to LE he shot TM and it would have been advisable. I know most people would have gone for the attorney once you are cuffed an attorney is in order. What surprises me is the father did not recommend one be there but instead it appears RZ, SR. thought he could "handle the matter himself." That does not seem odd to anyone????? jmo
Not really if it was already decided previously not to file charges and if that meeting between the powers happened around 3.00 am. Everything after that was more like tying some loose ends and mopping up. So why get an attorney.
Emeralgem
05-03-2012, 11:50 AM
So it's all a big conspiracy to cover for Trayvon? No one should try to speak out on Trayvon's behalf? He deserved to die? It seems like a lot of people genuinely like Trayvon. I don't see a problem with them speaking up for him since he can't speak up for himself anymore. But it's okay for GZ and everyone who knew him to talk about GZ and make him seem pure as the fallen snow? Both of them deserve to have people defend them. Trayvon is not less deserving here. There is no large conspiracy to frame GZ. I think I need to go find a tinfoil hat...
BBM..IMHO Not quite certain there isn't one in play to get GZ off the hook though..JMHO
JBean
05-03-2012, 11:50 AM
LOL of course Trayvon's HS is not so clear. It is ambiguous.
if they are only referred to the attendance review committee then they do not have the authority to suspend according to district policy if I read that right in my original link:
http://74.53.27.98/~mkhscom/Information%20Files/Attendance-Tardy-Policies.pdf
Concerned Papa
05-03-2012, 12:07 PM
Who was he telling to stop if he wasn't outside though? Was he still in his house, but with the door open when he yelled at them to stop? I'm trying to picture that and it seems weird.
ETA: If he already was in the house when he said 'stop I'm calling 911', why wouldn't he do it right then and there. As a matter of fact, why would he go upstairs anyway?
Who knows, City? I certainly don't. I'm trying to take the most simplistic approach possible in my view by considering, literally, only what these people are saying.
My head might explode if I started trying to figure out what these people are TRYING to say, LOL.
The best example I can give you deals with the location of the body. IIRC, the Fox vid says John told them the fight happened directly under that bathroom window. The SPD report says the body was between 1231 Twin Trees and 2831 Retreat View. The SFD says it was in the back yard of 2831 Retreat view. Zimmerman's own lawyer said the evidence suggested it was 70yards from TM's own back door.
And NONE of these locations are "where the sidewalks intersect".
Plenty of people on this site have already attempted to explain how the SPD report and SFD dispatch recording don't mean what they say, so I guess, maybe, something will come along one of these days to clear all of it up.
JBean
05-03-2012, 12:10 PM
So is it the understanding that he was suspended because of tardiness? What school suspends a kid for tardiness, even multiple times?
Miami Sr High does. :) Just to answer your question.
rotterdam
05-03-2012, 12:17 PM
So it's all a big conspiracy to cover for Trayvon? No one should try to speak out on Trayvon's behalf? He deserved to die? It seems like a lot of people genuinely like Trayvon. I don't see a problem with them speaking up for him since he can't speak up for himself anymore. But it's okay for GZ and everyone who knew him to talk about GZ and make him seem pure as the fallen snow? Both of them deserve to have people defend them. Trayvon is not less deserving here. There is no large conspiracy to frame GZ. I think I need to go find a tinfoil hat...
This case is so politically loaded. It is hard to predict what the outcome will be. Just that many other powerful entities are involved besides Trayvon and GZ. JMO.
vlpate
05-03-2012, 12:25 PM
Miami HS Clearly suspends for tardiness so I will check Trayvons HS now.
http://mhs.dadeschools.net/students_attendance_tardypolicy.html
Rosova found the information or this district a while back, and if IIRC, tardiness was not an act warranting a 10 day suspension. Zero policy for the marijuana is probably why the 10 days.
JBean
05-03-2012, 12:27 PM
Rosova found the information or this district a while back, and if IIRC, tardiness was not an act warranting a 10 day suspension. Zero policy for the marijuana is probably why the 10 days.
I think it is ambiguous personally.
This could be a case of "operator" where someone in the school assumed it was for tardiness and that is the story that was repeated. who knows? but so easily verifiable as it relates to the case I don;t think anyone was lying about it.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 12:27 PM
Link please.
This is what was in the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
******
Further down SA asks the question about the inconsistencies in those five statements.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 12:31 PM
Who knows, City? I certainly don't. I'm trying to take the most simplistic approach possible in my view by considering, literally, only what these people are saying.
My head might explode if I started trying to figure out what these people are TRYING to say, LOL.
The best example I can give you deals with the location of the body. IIRC, the Fox vid says John told them the fight happened directly under that bathroom window. The SPD report says the body was between 1231 Twin Trees and 2831 Retreat View. The SFD says it was in the back yard of 2831 Retreat view. Zimmerman's own lawyer said the evidence suggested it was 70yards from TM's own back door.
And NONE of these locations are "where the sidewalks intersect".
Plenty of people on this site have already attempted to explain how the SPD report and SFD dispatch recording don't mean what they say, so I guess, maybe, something will come along one of these days to clear all of it up.
Thank you Papa. I think you have done a pretty good job of clearing things up with your charts and pictures. lol
JBean
05-03-2012, 12:32 PM
Personal request.
I keep reading there were 5 differing statements given by Zimmerman. The implication being that they were contradictory.
Can someone please spell those statements out for me,clarify if they were different as in contradictory or different as in 5 different times.
Please do not respond to this post unless you can answer that question completely. What I mean is not looking for a bunch of round about on this. Just want to clarify once and for all even if it is to find out that we don't know.
trying to separate fact from fiction in general.
TIA
vlpate
05-03-2012, 12:41 PM
That is assuming that John did not go outside. I know we discussed this at length the other day, but was there anything definitively stating that John did not go outside?
(Nice work on the graphics by the way)
Hi Phoenixfla. He wouldn't have to go outside all the way to see or hear the altercation. It happened right off John's patio door, he could have opened it when he heard the yelling. He witnessed part of the attack from downstairs and the rest from his upstairs window. He could see it, he could hear it. The reporter points this out on the video below, and the reporter would know. GZ's father's words are being taken too literally, IMO. That, or maybe misunderstood.
Trayvon Martin Attacking George Zimmermann Screaming "Help!" according to Neighbor - YouTube
Does anyone have a link or GZ's father being with him the next day during the reenactment?
JMO
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 12:42 PM
Personal request.
I keep reading there were 5 differing statements given by Zimmerman. The implication being that they were contradictory.
Can someone please spell those statements out for me,clarify if they were different as in contradictory or different as in 5 different times.
Please do not respond to this post unless you can answer that question completely. What I mean is not looking for a bunch of round about on this. Just want to clarify once and for all even if it is to find out that we don't know.
trying to separate fact from fiction in general.
TIA
BBM
I'm not sure if anybody but the investigators can answer your question under those rules...
It is my understanding that there were five different statements, as in five statements given at separate occasions. This comes from the bond hearing. (The numbers three and four were also mentioned.)
It was also said that there were inconsistencies in the statements.
But I have never seen it clarified whether all five statements are different, as in he told five different stories in five different interviews.
I kind of got the impression from the questioning of GZ that he might have sometimes changed his story within the same interview when challenged.
sleonardelli
05-03-2012, 12:43 PM
Possibly, but I personally have never heard of a student being suspended for tardyness. It seems counterproductive to prevent a student from attending school as punishment for not attending school. Detention seems like a better punishment for tardyness. Suspension for tardyness does not pass the sniff test for me.
Perhaps it was in in-school suspension (ISS) where the students sit in a classroom and twiddle their thumbs for the school day or it could've been alternative to out-of-school suspension (ATOSS) which the students meet off school campus and attend character-building courses. There is a LEO and a "teacher" that run these.
pcrum12
05-03-2012, 12:45 PM
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
******
Further down SA asks the question about the inconsistencies in those five statements.
GZ also states in that same line of questioning that he recalled giving 3 statements and that he "Absolutely Not" changed his story.
vlpate
05-03-2012, 12:46 PM
I think it is ambiguous personally.
This could be a case of "operator" where someone in the school assumed it was for tardiness and that is the story that was repeated. who knows? but so easily verifiable as it relates to the case I don;t think anyone was lying about it.
I thought I read somewhere the teacher didn't want to comment. If she did say it was for tardiness, I don't think she was lying either, I just think she didn't feel it was her place to say. JMO
katydid23
05-03-2012, 12:51 PM
I think the confusion with the five different 'versions' of the story started when people began counting what Joe Oliver said, and the Z brother said, and then what the Z father said, and added that to the two reported versions of what Z himself reportedly said, and so people then would say "There are five different versions of his story out there."
vlpate
05-03-2012, 12:57 PM
BBM
I'm not sure if anybody but the investigators can answer your question under those rules...
It is my understanding that there were five different statements, as in five statements given at separate occasions. This comes from the bond hearing. (The numbers three and four were also mentioned.)
It was also said that there were inconsistencies in the statements.
But I have never seen it clarified whether all five statements are different, as in he told five different stories in five different interviews.
I kind of got the impression from the questioning of GZ that he might have sometimes changed his story within the same interview when challenged.
I took it as LE was telling him he was being inconsistent, that they didn't believe him, because of things he couldn't recall saying. They could have been putting words in his mouth, and then challenging on those words, because they can, during the latter interviews. JMO
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"? (He doesn't challenge him on the number of times)
O'MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.
JUDGE LESTER: We'll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?
JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.
O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
______________________
IMO, de leronda (sp) threw the "5" times in, just like he threw in the bit about Zimmerman trying to contact the parents. It gets the info out there to be repeated until it becomes truth, as is witnessed here.
rotterdam
05-03-2012, 12:59 PM
Hi Phoenixfla. He wouldn't have to go outside all the way to see or hear the altercation. It happened right off John's patio door, he could have opened it when he heard the yelling. He witnessed part of the attack from downstairs and the rest from his upstairs window. He could see it, he could hear it. The reporter points this out on the video below, and the reporter would know. GZ's father's words are being taken too literally, IMO. That, or maybe misunderstood.
Trayvon Martin Attacking George Zimmermann Screaming "Help!" according to Neighbor - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SZRdGIjt_o)
Does anyone have a link or GZ's father being with him the next day during the reenactment?
JMO
Here you go
snipped
The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered. The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground.
Mr. Zimmerman’s father watched from nearby. “They started where his vehicle was,” he recalled. “They walked him down the sidewalk and to the end of the sidewalk, to the street where he got an address and then walked him back towards his vehicle, near where the incident occurred.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?_r=3&pagewanted=7&hp
Sherbie
05-03-2012, 01:00 PM
Personal request.
I keep reading there were 5 differing statements given by Zimmerman. The implication being that they were contradictory.
Can someone please spell those statements out for me,clarify if they were different as in contradictory or different as in 5 different times.
Please do not respond to this post unless you can answer that question completely. What I mean is not looking for a bunch of round about on this. Just want to clarify once and for all even if it is to find out that we don't know.
trying to separate fact from fiction in general.
TIA
The only information I'm aware of regarding the number/substance of GZ's statements comes from the bond hearing, as others have posted.
I recall in a press conference or interview after the hearing, a female atty (I believe she might be one of the family attys) mentioned that Zimmerman had given "five different stories" to LE. That may be where that assertion originated.
All I can deduce at this point is that GZ gave 3-5 separate statements to LE and the state asserts there are inconsistencies therein. We need the discovery in order to see for ourselves.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 01:00 PM
I think the confusion with the five different 'versions' of the story started when people began counting what Joe Oliver said, and the Z brother said, and then what the Z father said, and added that to the two reported versions of what Z himself reportedly said, and so people then would say "There are five different versions of his story out there."
Doesn't Frank Taaffe count :D ?
GZ also states in that same line of questioning that he recalled giving 3 statements and that he "Absolutely Not" changed his story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested -- I'm sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?
ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then the following morning. Is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
BBM
de la Rionda at this point says 4 or 5 times. Not sure why he says 5 at other points in his questioning, but here its as if he doesn't know the exact amount of statements/questioning.
vlpate
05-03-2012, 01:04 PM
Here you go
snipped
The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered. The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground.
Mr. Zimmerman’s father watched from nearby. “They started where his vehicle was,” he recalled. “They walked him down the sidewalk and to the end of the sidewalk, to the street where he got an address and then walked him back towards his vehicle, near where the incident occurred.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?_r=3&pagewanted=7&hp
Tyvm rotterdam. So he was "present" while the reenactment was being done. Saying he was "with" him makes it sound like he had some hand in the reenactment. GZ lives at the community, so perhaps his father was at GZ's house and simply watched, along with many others, the reenactment take place.
JMO
LambChop
05-03-2012, 01:13 PM
GZ also states in that same line of questioning that he recalled giving 3 statements and that he "Absolutely Not" changed his story.
But I believe the message SA was trying to get through to GZ was that those statements were recorded. Those very statements, IMO, would have been to determine what charges the DA should have brought against GZ. The charges now we know are 2nd degree murder. So what inconsistencies led them to believe that. Once those statements are released through discovery we will be able to check them out ourselves. Sometimes when people are inconsistent in the statements because those statements are not based entirely on the truth people are not aware of the inconsistencies and it would be only natural to answer absolutely not. jmo
rotterdam
05-03-2012, 01:16 PM
Tyvm rotterdam. So he was "present" while the reenactment was being done. Saying he was "with" him makes it sound like he had some hand in the reenactment. GZ lives at the community, so perhaps his father was at GZ's house and simply watched, along with many others, the reenactment take place.
JMO
It would have been nice though if they would have told Mr Martin or Ms Green about the reenactment. Am sure , he would have been very interested. But as far as I know, Mr Martin nor Ms Green was there.
Also, do not think it was a coincidence that RZ Sr was there since he apparently was also present at the interview of GZ on same day..
BTW, that quoted seven page article has a lot of info. It refreshed my memory again.
Elley Mae
05-03-2012, 01:17 PM
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
******
Further down SA asks the question about the inconsistencies in those five statements.
And how does one come to the conclusion that by GZ stating that he has given 5 statement to then turn that into he has given 5 different statements?
For the life of me I will listen very intently to this explanation.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 01:21 PM
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together. ******
Further down SA asks the question about the inconsistencies in those five statements.
Zimmerman admitted under oath to making five statements at the bond hearing. So maybe he meant only 2 of the 5 statements were inconsistent????? jmo
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 01:23 PM
But I believe the message SA was trying to get through to GZ was that those statements were recorded. Those very statements, IMO, would have been to determine what charges the DA should have brought against GZ. The charges now we know are 2nd degree murder. So what inconsistencies led them to believe that. Once those statements are released through discovery we will be able to check them out ourselves. Sometimes when people are inconsistent in the statements because those statements are not based entirely on the truth people are not aware of the inconsistencies and it would be only natural to answer absolutely not. jmo
A bit like what happens here, in fact.
I’m sorry, sir, you’re not really addressing that to the court. You’re doing it here for the victim’s family, is that correct?
[George Zimmerman]
They are here in the court, yes.
I understand. But I thought you were going to address your honor, ( ) Judge Lester, not — so that’s really addressed to the family and where the media happens to be, correct, Mr. Zimmerman?
[George Zimmerman]
No, to the mother and the father.
Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, [B]did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you’ve done or their loss?
[George Zimmerman]
No sir.
You never stated that, did you?
[George Zimmerman]
I don’t remember what I said. I believe I did say that.
You told that to the police?
[George Zimmerman]
In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.
You did.
[George Zimmerman]
Yes, sir.
So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
[George Zimmerman]
Yes, sir.
And you’re sure you said that?
[George Zimmerman] Source: LYBIO.net
I’m fairly certain.
And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
[George Zimmerman]
Yes, sir, I’m sorry, all the names run together.
And do you remember if it was a male or a female?
[George Zimmerman]
There were both males and females.
At the time you made that statement that you were sorry?
[George Zimmerman]
Yes, sir.
And let me make sure the record’s clear, you stated exactly what to those detectives?
[George Zimmerman]
I don’t remember exactly what — verbatim.
But you’re saying you expressed concern for the loss of Mr. Martin, or that you had shot Mr. Martin, that you actually felt sorry for him.
[George Zimmerman]
I felt sorry that they lost their child, yes.
And so you told detectives that you wanted them to convey that to the parents?
[George Zimmerman]
I don’t know if they were detectives or not.
Officers, I apologize.
[George Zimmerman]
I didn’t know if they were going to convey it or not. I just made the statement.
Ok. And then you said that you called them or you left a message for them to tell them that?
[George Zimmerman]
No, sir.
Why did you wait 50 something days to tell them — that is, the parents?
[George Zimmerman] Source: LYBIO.net
I don’t understand the question, sir.
Why did you wait so long to tell Mr. Martin and the victim’s mother, the father and mother, why did you wait so long to tell them?
[George Zimmerman]
I was told not to communicate with them.
Ok. So even through your attorney, you didn’t ask to do it right away? Your former attorneys or anything.
[George Zimmerman]
I did ask them to express that to them. And they said that they were going to.
He didn't make a statement that he's sorry when he was questioned. No, wait, he doesn't remember. No, wait, he believes he did. Yes, in fact he is fairly certain that he did. He even remembers there were both males and females in the room. He doesn't remember what he said. Oh, he remembers he felt sorry. He didn't know if the officers were going to communicate it to the family, he just made the statement. No, wait, he actually asked them to communicate it to the family and they agreed.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 01:24 PM
And how does one come to the conclusion that by GZ stating that he has given 5 statement to then turn that into he has given 5 different statements?
For the life of me I will listen very intently to this explanation.
LOL, Elley.....even his testimony about how many statements he gave is inconsistent in the bond hearing. Seriously does he have comprehension problems??? jmo
cityslick
05-03-2012, 01:25 PM
Who knows, City? I certainly don't. I'm trying to take the most simplistic approach possible in my view by considering, literally, only what these people are saying.
My head might explode if I started trying to figure out what these people are TRYING to say, LOL.
The best example I can give you deals with the location of the body. IIRC, the Fox vid says John told them the fight happened directly under that bathroom window. The SPD report says the body was between 1231 Twin Trees and 2831 Retreat View. The SFD says it was in the back yard of 2831 Retreat view. Zimmerman's own lawyer said the evidence suggested it was 70yards from TM's own back door.
And NONE of these locations are "where the sidewalks intersect".
Plenty of people on this site have already attempted to explain how the SPD report and SFD dispatch recording don't mean what they say, so I guess, maybe, something will come along one of these days to clear all of it up.
Ok, I wasn't challenging your theory (you do a great job btw, even if I don't necessarily agree with the findings) but more thinking questions out loud as to how much sense certain things are based on the witness (which is very limited at this point).
I agree that simply going off the police report to determine where the body was may be using a little faulty logic, considering there still seems to be a lot of information missing about the crime scene that night that the report does not answer (the tarp for example). We will definitely know more as stuff will eventually be disclosed.
Elley Mae
05-03-2012, 01:25 PM
Zimmerman admitted under oath to making five statements at the bond hearing. So maybe he meant only 2 of the 5 statements were inconsistent????? jmo
I do not see that at all jmo No where does that say to me that if the amount of statements that GZ says he made are different then some where in there some of them are lies. jmo
LambChop
05-03-2012, 01:26 PM
A bit like what happens here, in fact.
He didn't make a statement that he's sorry when he was questioned. No, wait, he doesn't remember. No, wait, he believes he did. Yes, in fact he is fairly certain that he did. He even remembers there were both males and females in the room. He doesn't remember what he said. Oh, he remembers he felt sorry. He didn't know if the officers were going to communicate it to the family, he just made the statement. No, wait, he actually asked them to communicate it to the family and they agreed.
And this proves the old saying that the truth is soooooooo much easier to remember. lol
Karmady
05-03-2012, 01:26 PM
And how does one come to the conclusion that by GZ stating that he has given 5 statement to then turn that into he has given 5 different statements?
For the life of me I will listen very intently to this explanation.
Also, iirc, although he answers a question with the number 5 in it with "yes, sir," that is immediately followed by his recollection that he gave 3 statements and his denial that they were inconsistent. That section of the transcript was posted in the last thread.
eta: here it is. I was wrong about "followed," the yes, sir "followed"
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"?
O'MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.
JUDGE LESTER: We'll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?
JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.
O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?
ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
Elley Mae
05-03-2012, 01:28 PM
Ok, I wasn't challenging your theory (you do a great job btw, even if I don't necessarily agree with the findings) but more thinking questions out loud as to how much sense certain things are based on the witness (which is very limited at this point).
I agree that simply going off the police report to determine where the body was may be using a little faulty logic, considering there still seems to be a lot of information missing about the crime scene that night that the report does not answer (the tarp for example). We will definitely know more as stuff will eventually be disclosed.
there was an article I read about a lady walking a dog, reporter talked to her she said Tm was laying in the shade of a maple tree. will go look
In my experience, if a student is consistently tardy eventually they will get a suspension. I used to miss my bus so that I'd have to walk to school and after a while the school catches on. Excessive tardiness is treated like truancy, at least when I was a kid and when my own children were in school.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 01:29 PM
I do not see that at all jmo No where does that say to me that if the amount of statements that GZ says he made are different then some where in there some of them are lies. jmo
I'm not talking about the inconsistencies which the investigator rightfully indentified as inconsistencies within the statements he gave. I'm talking about the fact that he just testified and agreed that he gave 5 statements and then later claimed he only gave 3 statements. That, in itself, is an inconsistent statement. On the stand he have proven he has some credibility problems. jmo
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 01:31 PM
It would have been nice though if they would have told Mr Martin or Ms Green about the reenactment. Am sure , he would have been very interested. But as far as I know, Mr Martin nor Ms Green was there.
Also, do not think it was a coincidence that RZ Sr was there since he apparently was also present at the interview of GZ on same day..
BTW, that quoted seven page article has a lot of info. It refreshed my memory again.
I think it would be a bad idea to have the victim's family present if they weren't present when it all happened. It would be painful for the family and it's not the proper place and time for the family and the alleged perp to get together for the first time imo. There could be a confrontation that distracts from the task at hand and even if there isn't people might find themselves distracted by the obvious pain of the family or try to shield them from the unhappy truth which would undermine the purpose of the re-enactment.
Aedrys
05-03-2012, 01:32 PM
A bit like what happens here, in fact.
He didn't make a statement that he's sorry when he was questioned. No, wait, he doesn't remember. No, wait, he believes he did. Yes, in fact he is fairly certain that he did. He even remembers there were both males and females in the room. He doesn't remember what he said. Oh, he remembers he felt sorry. He didn't know if the officers were going to communicate it to the family, he just made the statement. No, wait, he actually asked them to communicate it to the family and they agreed.
Holy Moly, that is the worst case of not giving a straight answer I have ever seen. He is going to be a nightmare on the stand if he answers like this. Wow. It's not that hard to give a straight answer, but apparently GZ has no clue how do that.
JBean
05-03-2012, 01:33 PM
Well so much for going around about it LOL.
I think at this point it is pretty safe to say we do not know if he gave 5 inconsistent and/or contradictory statements.
So if you do make any reference to it please do not state it as fact but rather your interpretation of the information we have.
there is a difference and we need to be more sensitive to that all the way around this case.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 01:37 PM
Also, iirc, although he answers a question with the number 5 in it with "yes, sir," that is immediately followed by his recollection that he gave 3 statements and his denial that they were inconsistent. That section of the transcript was posted in the last thread.
eta: here it is. I was wrong about "followed," the yes, sir "followed"
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"?
O'MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.
JUDGE LESTER: We'll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?
JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.
O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?
ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
I think he might possibly deny that he was inconsistent in the snippet I posted above but it doesn't mean he wasn't... Imo.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 01:37 PM
Well so much for going around about it LOL.
I think at this point it is pretty safe to say we do not know if he gave 5 inconsistent and/or contradictory statements.
So if you do make any reference to it please do not state it as fact but rather your interpretation of the information we have.
there is a difference and we need to be more sensitive to that all the way around this case.
Yep. That's about it. He gave a number of statements and the State maintains there were some inconsistencies in his statements. How many, we do not know for sure. The only one the investigator mentioned was TM circling the truck three times which is inconsistent with GZ's story of being attacked at the cut through. jmo
Sherbie
05-03-2012, 01:45 PM
A bit like what happens here, in fact.
He didn't make a statement that he's sorry when he was questioned. No, wait, he doesn't remember. No, wait, he believes he did. Yes, in fact he is fairly certain that he did. He even remembers there were both males and females in the room. He doesn't remember what he said. Oh, he remembers he felt sorry. He didn't know if the officers were going to communicate it to the family, he just made the statement. No, wait, he actually asked them to communicate it to the family and they agreed.
Well...if his statements to LE are anything like that, he's in worse trouble than I imagined. :eek:
That quoted text reminded me of something that I've been curious about ever since the hearing. The prosecutor prefaced a question with, "After you committed this crime..." (Typical lawyer tactic to throw in something you want the other party to impliedly cede without their noticing it because they're focused on answering the actual question.)
GZ answered the question without contesting that point and O'Mara didn't object to that characterization. Maybe since there was no jury to hear it, it wasn't a big deal, but it struck me as odd that O'Mara didn't challenge that.
I'm not talking about the inconsistencies which the investigator rightfully indentified as inconsistencies within the statements he gave. I'm talking about the fact that he just testified and agreed that he gave 5 statements and then later claimed he only gave 3 statements. That, in itself, is an inconsistent statement. On the stand he have proven he has some credibility problems. jmo
I think you're referring to this section of the transcript:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you remember if it was a male or a female?
ZIMMERMAN: There were both males and females.
The way I read it, the amount of statements was not framed as a question at this point. GZ is responding to the question"which officer?" first with "yes" (IMO, as in "I understand your question"), then with "sir" and then "I'm sorry all their names run together." He's not responding to the non-question about the number of statements. When he is actually questioned about the number of statements later, he says that he remembers giving three statements.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
Because I don't think GZ planned to shoot, much less kill, anyone that night, IMO, it seems likely he was in shock. IMO, it's not a stretch to understand that it would be difficult for him to remember what he said to who and when he said it. It sounds like he was dealing with a lot of officers/detectives. Is that normal? I'd think that would get quite confusing so maybe LE does it on purpose.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
Personal request.
I keep reading there were 5 differing statements given by Zimmerman. The implication being that they were contradictory.
Can someone please spell those statements out for me,clarify if they were different as in contradictory or different as in 5 different times.
Please do not respond to this post unless you can answer that question completely. What I mean is not looking for a bunch of round about on this. Just want to clarify once and for all even if it is to find out that we don't know.
trying to separate fact from fiction in general.
TIA
JBean:
I know you've already gotten several responses to this about this being brought out in the bond hearing.
Yes, the witness, State Pros Investigator, said there were inconsistencies or different stories. Can't recall exact words. But then when GZ took the stand, after his apology to the parents, he was questioned by the pros and then the def attorney. Can't recall which but I believe it was the def attorney asked him if he'd changed his story to LE that night and next day. He said 'No.'
As the pros hasn't released any evidence, about the only thing we have to go on regarding this is one side said it's different, other side said it isn't, and we haven't seen any evidence.
So I guess it would be 'allegedly' different stories.
JMHO
fran
Elley Mae
05-03-2012, 01:57 PM
I think you're referring to this section of the transcript:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you remember if it was a male or a female?
ZIMMERMAN: There were both males and females.
The way I read it, the amount of statements was not framed as a question at this point. GZ is responding to the question"which officer?" first with "yes" (IMO, as in "I understand your question"), then with "sir" and then "I'm sorry all their names run together." He's not responding to the non-question about the number of statements. When he is actually questioned about the number of statements later, he says that he remembers giving three statements.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
Thanks for this, I see it as the person asking the question wants to know what (interviewer) of the 3-5 statement that you gave did you say that to.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 01:58 PM
But I believe the message SA was trying to get through to GZ was that those statements were recorded. Those very statements, IMO, would have been to determine what charges the DA should have brought against GZ. The charges now we know are 2nd degree murder. So what inconsistencies led them to believe that. Once those statements are released through discovery we will be able to check them out ourselves. Sometimes when people are inconsistent in the statements because those statements are not based entirely on the truth people are not aware of the inconsistencies and it would be only natural to answer absolutely not. jmo
That could be, or it could be that what is percevied as inconsistencies is merely details that need more explaination.
Karmady
05-03-2012, 02:02 PM
I think you're referring to this section of the transcript:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you remember if it was a male or a female?
ZIMMERMAN: There were both males and females.
The way I read it, the amount of statements was not framed as a question at this point. GZ is responding to the question"which officer?" first with "yes" (IMO, as in "I understand your question"), then with "sir" and then "I'm sorry all their names run together." He's not responding to the non-question about the number of statements. When he is actually questioned about the number of statements later, he says that he remembers giving three statements.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
That's the way I read it, too. It's a "bad" compound question, imo, and George was answering the first part and not focusing on the second. jmo
LambChop
05-03-2012, 02:08 PM
I think you're referring to this section of the transcript:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you remember if it was a male or a female?
ZIMMERMAN: There were both males and females.
The way I read it, the amount of statements was not framed as a question at this point. GZ is responding to the question"which officer?" first with "yes" (IMO, as in "I understand your question"), then with "sir" and then "I'm sorry all their names run together." He's not responding to the non-question about the number of statements. When he is actually questioned about the number of statements later, he says that he remembers giving three statements.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
Unless GZ has a comprehension problem the question was pretty clear. The last question asked of him before his answer was......."You made five statements I believe, total?.....GZ's immediate answer is....."Yes, sir, I'm sorry....." So he was answering both questions. The last question he heard it appears he answered and clarified by continuing that he did not know all the officers names. It appears he understood the question. jmo
LambChop
05-03-2012, 02:12 PM
That could be, or it could be that what is percevied as inconsistencies is merely details that need more explaination.
That is why he has an attorney to CLEAR up those inconsistencies. MOM did not do that....."Let sleeping dogs lie" IMO
beach
05-03-2012, 02:13 PM
Yep. That's about it. He gave a number of statements and the State maintains there were some inconsistencies in his statements. How many, we do not know for sure. The only one the investigator mentioned was TM circling the truck three times which is inconsistent with GZ's story of being attacked at the cut through. jmo
Sometimes witnesses get confused about what constitutes a "statement". He may have given 3 oral statements and 2 written statements. When they are asked a question like that when on the stand, I think they often just consider the times they were interviewed orally as statements. Those tend to stand out in their mind for obvious reasons. When actually, all are legally considered statements.
IOW, maybe it is just a misunderstanding on the part of the witness.
ETA: I admit I haven't been able to keep up with everything lately so not sure how many oral and written statements actually exist. Not claiming the scenario I propose is the truth of what happened. Just throwing it out here for consideration.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 02:13 PM
I am willing to give him a pass for the number of statements since I can't see what bearing it has on guilt or innocence. Maybe his idea of which conversations constituted a statement differs from the prosecutor's idea. It's more what he said than how many times he did imo. As it looks now he could have contradicted himself several times within a couple of sentences.
vlpate
05-03-2012, 02:20 PM
Unless GZ has a comprehension problem the question was pretty clear. The last question asked of him before his answer was......."You made five statements I believe, total?.....GZ's immediate answer is....."Yes, sir, I'm sorry....." So he was answering both questions. The last question he heard it appears he answered and clarified by continuing that he did not know all the officers names. It appears he understood the question. jmo
It wasn't a question. Adding a question mark where there wasn't one is misleading. He didn't say, "Did you make five statements", or "you made five statements I believe, total, correct".
And frankly, so what if he did make five statements or twenty? O'Mara questioned the Investigator about any inconsistencies in what GZ told officers the night the incident happened, and the evidence and witness statements that night, and there were none.
The inconsistency of GZ's account as to how he received his head injuries, was addressed. The investigator conceded that GZ's head came in contact with something harder that his head. IMO - that would seem to be cement more than soft grass and wet ground.
JMO
LambChop
05-03-2012, 02:21 PM
Sometimes witnesses get confused about what constitutes a "statement". He may have given 3 oral statements and 2 written statements. When they are asked a question like that when on the stand, I think they often just consider the times they were interviewed orally as statements. Those tend to stand out in their mind for obvious reasons. When actually, all are legally considered statements.
IOW, maybe it is just a misunderstanding on the part of the witness.
ETA: I admit I haven't been able to keep up with everything lately so not sure how many oral and written statements actually exist. Not claiming the scenario I propose is the truth of what happened. Just throwing it out here for consideration.
Would MOM have tried to clarify GZ's statement. Or is it possible MOM does not know how many statement GZ gave??? jmo
LambChop
05-03-2012, 02:22 PM
It wasn't a question. Adding a question mark where there wasn't one is misleading. He didn't say, "Did you make five statements", or "you made five statements I believe, total, correct".
And frankly, so what if he did make five statements or twenty? O'Mara questioned the Investigator about any inconsistencies in what GZ told officers the night the incident happened, and the evidence and witness statements that night, and there were none.
The inconsistency of GZ's account as to how he received his head injuries, was addressed. The investigator conceded that GZ's head came in contact with something harder that his head. IMO - that would seem to be cement more than soft grass and wet ground.
JMO
GZ was on the stand testifying why wouldn't it be a question? It was asked by the SA. I believe the homocide detective who was on that night is one of the one's who interviewed GZ and he felt GZ was not telling the truth. jmo
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674
vlpate
05-03-2012, 02:23 PM
Yep. That's about it. He gave a number of statements and the State maintains there were some inconsistencies in his statements. How many, we do not know for sure. The only one the investigator mentioned was TM circling the truck three times which is inconsistent with GZ's story of being attacked at the cut through. jmo
Can you please tell me where this is? I've read the entire transcript a couple of times and cannot find it. Maybe it was during a commercial break and didn't make the transcript? TIA
vlpate
05-03-2012, 02:26 PM
Would MOM have tried to clarify GZ's statement. Or is it possible MOM does not know how many statement GZ gave??? jmo
If I were M'OM I might be thinking it helped his case as far as the unfounded rumor perpetuated by Crump <Mod Snip>., that there was no investigation. JMO
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 02:27 PM
I'm not talking about the inconsistencies which the investigator rightfully indentified as inconsistencies within the statements he gave. I'm talking about the fact that he just testified and agreed that he gave 5 statements and then later claimed he only gave 3 statements. That, in itself, is an inconsistent statement. On the stand he have proven he has some credibility problems. jmo
Let me ask this then. Why would he lie about the number of statements he gave? Lets say he actually gave 5, why would he lie and say he gave 3? What would that accomplish? IMO, IF was trying to mislead the court, it would not be over something as easily verifiable as how many statements he gave.
Can you please tell me where this is? I've read the entire transcript a couple of times and cannot find it. Maybe it was during a commercial break and didn't make the transcript? TIA
There was a notation of circling, but not three times.
It has not been transcribed anywhere, because this is a portion in the CNN transcription where they broke away to commercial. It was described as "circling" his car.
I transcribed it myself.DE LA RIONDA: Did he, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?
GILBREATH: Yes.
DE LA RIONDA: According to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin? Correct?
GILBREATH: He went after him,Yes.
DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it true, based on the evidence, Mr. Zimmerman had two flashlights with him?
GILBREATH: Yes.
<snip /tactical flashlight description>
DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after' - Mr. Martin, is that correct?
GILBREATH: No.
DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?
GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?
GILBREATH:Yes.
O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?
GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.
O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?
GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.
O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?
GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head
O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?
GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815) - Starts at about 1:46:39 (this portion)
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 03:18 PM
That is why he has an attorney to CLEAR up those inconsistencies. MOM did not do that....."Let sleeping dogs lie" IMO
The Probable Cause Affidavit did not specifically list those inconsistencies, or else he may have. They were limited to the scope of the affidavit.
GZ may or may not be able to explain those inconsistencies at the trial. I would not say that a lack of challenging inconsistencies by MOM, which are not part of the affidavit, means that there is real merit in them.
Karmady
05-03-2012, 03:24 PM
Would MOM have tried to clarify GZ's statement. Or is it possible MOM does not know how many statement GZ gave??? jmo
bbm~
My guess is that he feels the number of statements will speak for itself and that George's recollection of how many statements he gave is irrelevant when you're ultimately going to be looking at X number of statements. jmo
Unless GZ has a comprehension problem the question was pretty clear. The last question asked of him before his answer was......."You made five statements I believe, total?.....GZ's immediate answer is....."Yes, sir, I'm sorry....." So he was answering both questions. The last question he heard it appears he answered and clarified by continuing that he did not know all the officers names. It appears he understood the question. jmo
IMO, no; the question isn't clear. There isn't even a question mark in the transcript. GZ understood, and responded to, the first part of the question (the sentence with the question mark after it). And did not respond to the add-on sentence as, IMO, he was focusing on the "which officer" part.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
LambChop
05-03-2012, 03:28 PM
The Probable Cause Affidavit did not specifically list those inconsistencies, or else he may have. They were limited to the scope of the affidavit.
GZ may or may not be able to explain those inconsistencies at the trial. I would not say that a lack of challenging inconsistencies by MOM, which are not part of the affidavit, means that there is real merit in them.
I was just referring to how many statements GZ had given not necessarily that they were inconsistent. We know he gave an unrecorded statement to LE stating he shot TM. He also gave an unrecorded statement to the EMT that he kept calling for help. The narcotics officer took a statement which I'm assuming was recorded. The homocide detective took a statement which we can assume was recorded. He did a reenactment the next morning which would be another statement, recorded. And he admits to giving a statement on the evening of February 27th which IMO was recorded. So it does appear he gave more than 3 statements and at least 4 were recorded. Let me add, one would hope. jmo
LambChop
05-03-2012, 03:33 PM
IMO, no; the question isn't clear. There isn't even a question mark in the transcript. GZ understood, and responded to, the first part of the question (the sentence with the question mark after it). And did not respond to the add-on sentence as, IMO, he was focusing on the "which officer" part.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
GZ was testify and answering questions presented to him by SA. Just because a typist transcribed the recorded material does not mean it was not a question. When you are on the stand testify you are answering questions from the SA. Of course it was a question. Unless you are in GZ's head you do not know what he was responding to other than "yes", to the question. "Yes" is an answer to a question. Yes is not an answer to "which officer". jmo
LynnM
05-03-2012, 03:35 PM
bbm~
My guess is that he feels the number of statements will speak for itself and that George's recollection of how many statements he gave is irrelevant when you're ultimately going to be looking at X number of statements. jmo
I agree. There is no reason for GZ to lie about the number of statements since it is going to be made public. And I agree with Beach about possible confusion about what is a statement. Doing the re-enactment and telling his story again would be a statement but he might not think of it that way.
I think the significant point here is that he has given multiple statements and the prosecutor believes that there are meaningful inconsistencies.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 03:37 PM
Can you please tell me where this is? I've read the entire transcript a couple of times and cannot find it. Maybe it was during a commercial break and didn't make the transcript? TIA
You know I read it a couple of times but it appears the post below your's has cleared up that mystery. Gilbreath said GZ's statement was the TM was circling his car. I thought 3 times was a little much. So it was just TM was circling which would lead you to believe it was more than once otherwise he would have just been walking by the car. jmo
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 03:38 PM
Something I would like to see them clarify (because it seems inconsistent or otherwise mysterious to me) is this:
If I've understood GZ's story correctly or if it's been relayed correctly by the various second hand sources he says he saw TM from his vehicle when he was driving to Target. He thought TM was suspicious, stopped, parked his truck and called 911 to report a suspicious individual. He exited his truck and started following TM on foot but was almost immediately told to stop by the dispatcher, which he did. He changed direction and went to get an address from somewhere that TM wasn't at, then turned back to walk to his truck. At this point an irate TM attacked him and asked him, why are you following me, or what's your problem homes, or something to that effect. Possibly he asked first and attacked second, I'm not completely sure.
Does this sound about right?
If so... why did TM attack GZ? Whatever had GZ done to attract his attention at all? Why on earth would he be mad at somebody who sits in his truck having a phone conversation, then walks a very short distance towards him, then turns and goes away? He didn't own the retreat so he wouldn't have had the expectation that he should have all the sidewalks for himself. It wouldn't have appeared like GZ was following him if he turned away very shortly. GZ says he didn't confront TM to make any demands of him.
So why would TM even notice him? Why would he think that GZ was following him? Why would he think that GZ had a problem? Why would he be mad enough to beat him up?
If TM had heard the 911 conversation he could have been mad about GZ reporting him but would he have started a fight if he knew that the police was already on the way? it sounds like a certain way to be busted, and the impression I get from the 911 call is that TM wasn't close enough to hear the conversation anyway.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 03:38 PM
I agree. There is no reason for GZ to lie about the number of statements since it is going to be made public. And I agree with Beach about possible confusion about what is a statement. Doing the re-enactment and telling his story again would be a statement but he might not think of it that way.
I think the significant point here is that he has given multiple statements and the prosecutor believes that there are meaningful inconsistencies.
I think, too, GZ was caught off guard by the question because he really was not sure how many statements he had given. jmo
grammieto5
05-03-2012, 03:38 PM
I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 03:42 PM
I think he might be going wrong because he's trying to react to cues and read the reactions of the prosecutor (his attorney, the judge, other people in the courtroom) and figure out what his answer is supposed to be. It's easy to be led astray that way.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 03:47 PM
I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.
Does anyone remember a comment that was made about the discovery taking about a week before it's released to MOM? And wouldn't MOM get an original copy with all the witness names on them? So the redacting of names would be for the public only, correct???
LambChop
05-03-2012, 03:49 PM
I think he might be going wrong because he's trying to react to cues and read the reactions of the prosecutor (his attorney, the judge, other people in the courtroom) and figure out what his answer is supposed to be. It's easy to be led astray that way.
That is one of the problems with not letting you kids get out of their own jams. When they get into a situation where you can't give them the answers they have no life experience to draw from. jmo
Elley Mae
05-03-2012, 03:50 PM
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/judge-orders-some-states-evidence-be-made-public-g/nNNhD/
The Seminole County judge overseeing George Zimmerman’s murder trial has ordered some of the state's evidence against the accused killer of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin to be made public.
WFTV's legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the file could include information like the probable cause affidavit and investigative reports.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 03:54 PM
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/judge-orders-some-states-evidence-be-made-public-g/nNNhD/
The Seminole County judge overseeing George Zimmerman’s murder trial has ordered some of the state's evidence against the accused killer of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin to be made public.
WFTV's legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the file could include information like the probable cause affidavit and investigative reports.
Is this some other probable cause affidavit? They already published it.
zenreaper
05-03-2012, 04:00 PM
On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, but yesterday, many of the TM supporters were calling for the HEAD of WHOEVER leaked the school info. Quoting FERPA, listing Florida LAW, calling for peole to be FIRED over it, maybe even PROSECUTED. Of course, THAT was the info that listed criminal acts by TM. Now that the TEACHER, whom they KNOW THE NAME OF, has said something POSITIVE, while ALSO releasing confidential information about the discipline record, can't even be question about TRUTH. They believe her WHOLE HEARTEDLY, and are defending her from people pointing out inconsistencies.
So why not call for her to be FIRED? She BROKE THE LAW and released CONFIDENTIAL discplinary records, why the change is stance? :waitasec:
LambChop
05-03-2012, 04:07 PM
On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, but yesterday, many of the TM supporters were calling for the HEAD of WHOEVER leaked the school info. Quoting FERPA, listing Florida LAW, calling for peole to be FIRED over it, maybe even PROSECUTED. Of course, THAT was the info that listed criminal acts by TM. Now that the TEACHER, whom they KNOW THE NAME OF, has said something POSITIVE, while ALSO releasing confidential information about the discipline record, can't even be question about TRUTH. They believe her WHOLE HEARTEDLY, and are defending her from people pointing out inconsistencies.
So why not call for her to be FIRED? She BROKE THE LAW and released CONFIDENTIAL discplinary records, why the change is stance? :waitasec:
Perhaps she had permission from TM's parents to release the info. TM did not have a list of criminal acts only a disciplinary record. No criminal charges were every filed and he did not have a criminal record. jmo
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 04:08 PM
There was a notation of circling, but not three times.
It has not been transcribed anywhere, because this is a portion in the CNN transcription where they broke away to commercial. It was described as "circling" his car.
I transcribed it myself.DE LA RIONDA: Did he, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?
GILBREATH: Yes.
DE LA RIONDA: According to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin? Correct?
GILBREATH: He went after him,Yes.
DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it true, based on the evidence, Mr. Zimmerman had two flashlights with him?
GILBREATH: Yes.
<snip /tactical flashlight description>
DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after' - Mr. Martin, is that correct?
GILBREATH: No.
DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?
GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?
GILBREATH:Yes.
O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?
GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.
O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?
GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.
O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?
GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head
O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?
GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815) - Starts at about 1:46:39 (this portion)
From this statement it appears that Golbreath is saying at least one of these things is inconsistent with the evidence: #1 Bashing head against concrete, #2 Bashing occured just prior to the shooting and/or #3 GZ managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk.
I will sure be curious to see which of these statements is not consistent with the evidence. In my mind, #1 is certainly plausible, #2 seems plausible unless they have evidence that the injuries occured to his head before TM was on top of GZ, #3 I don't know what evidence would contradict this.
LynnM
05-03-2012, 04:09 PM
On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, <snipped>
The admins started a new thread. I don't think anything was deleted.
I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.
I know I'm a broken record, but my ex-DIL wiggled out of a hit and run charge because she got a doctor to sign off on her having a concussion and not being able to think clearly after she hit a parked car so hard that she had to get out and jump up and down on her bumper to pull it apart, toss the bumper to the side and then take off.
So be prepared for any statement inconsistencies to be the result of head trauma and/or shock.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
LambChop
05-03-2012, 04:15 PM
From this statement it appears that Golbreath is saying at least one of these things is inconsistent with the evidence: #1 Bashing head against concrete, #2 Bashing occured just prior to the shooting and/or #3 GZ managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk.
I will sure be curious to see which of these statements is not consistent with the evidence. In my mind, #1 is certainly plausible, #2 seems plausible unless they have evidence that the injuries occured to his head before TM was on top of GZ, #3 I don't know what evidence would contradict this.
I think GZ's statement comes into question because TM's feet were facing the pavement. If GZ only moved his head slightly to get it off the cement sidewalk just prior to shooting TM how did TM's body get so far away from the pavement and his head facing the building if he was on top of GZ in that location. Plus GZ claims TM attacked him on the cut through cross walk when TM's body was found yards away from the cut through area. Plus one statement was that TM fell backwards but was found face down with his hands under his body. jmo
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 04:17 PM
I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.
Would you expect those statements to read verbatim? I contend that inconsistencies may be a mountain, or they may be a mole hill. There COULD be reasonable explainations for inconsistencies, or they may not be.
if I was the SA, I would not rest my case on inconsistencies in the statements of someone that was just involved in a fatal shooting. I sure hope they have more evidence than that. I would venture to say that this event has been the most stressful event in GZs life, and if there are small inconsistencies in his statements, I would not be surprised.
I really really want to know the forensics on bullet trajectory, firing distance, and entrance wound. Do you think that will be in the document dump? Is that too much to hope?
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 04:21 PM
IDK, I'm trying not to assume anything, but who knows? His interview doesn't say, to my knowledge, anything definitive as to whether or not he went outside, only referencing his having locked the patio doors.
He would have had to be outside in order to lock the patio doors, since they are on the outside perimeter of the patio fence. JMO
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 04:22 PM
I think GZ's statement comes into question because TM's feet were facing the pavement. If GZ only moved his head slightly to get it off the cement sidewalk just prior to shooting TM how did TM's body get so far away from the pavement and his head facing the building if he was on top of GZ in that location. Plus GZ claims TM attacked him on the cut through cross walk when TM's body was found yards away from the cut through area. Plus one statement was that TM fell backwards but was found face down with his hands under his body. jmo
Respectfully, do you have a link to this? I thought we don't even know the exact location where the body was located, much less the positioning.
Elley Mae
05-03-2012, 04:23 PM
He would have had to be outside in order to lock the patio doors, since they are on the outside perimeter of the patio fence. JMO
Thank You!
LambChop
05-03-2012, 04:23 PM
Would you expect those statements to read verbatim? I contend that inconsistencies may be a mountain, or they may be a mole hill. There COULD be reasonable explainations for inconsistencies, or they may not be.
if I was the SA, I would not rest my case on inconsistencies in the statements of someone that was just involved in a fatal shooting. I sure hope they have more evidence than that. I would venture to say that this event has been the most stressful event in GZs life, and if there are small inconsistencies in his statements, I would not be surprised.
I don't think the State would base their view of inconsistencies on anything minor, or a misstatement by the defendant. These have to be of the "big old lies" kind that concluded he needed to be charged with 2nd degree murder. We're not talking about those, he was wearing a red sweater when it was a jacket types of inconsistencies. We are talking "whoppers", IMO. jmo
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 04:25 PM
I really really want to know the forensics on bullet trajectory, firing distance, and entrance wound. Do you think that will be in the document dump? Is that too much to hope?
In the words of Tom Petty......The waiting is the hardest part...
I'd love to see them also.
My top 3 evidence items are:
1. Forensics you mentioned above
2. GZs actual statements
3. TM autopsy and TOX results
suzihawk
05-03-2012, 04:27 PM
I think he might be going wrong because he's trying to react to cues and read the reactions of the prosecutor (his attorney, the judge, other people in the courtroom) and figure out what his answer is supposed to be. It's easy to be led astray that way.
I think you're right. There's no need for him to try to figure out what he's 'supposed' to say. What he's expected to tell is the truth.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 04:28 PM
Respectfully, do you have a link to this? I thought we don't even know the exact location where the body was located, much less the positioning.
Trayvon Martin's Reported Body Location 1 - YouTube
This is what Mr. Martin was told by LE but the exact location was not pointed out to him at the time. Ironically now it appears TM was further along the path than Mr. Martin was told. MOM admits TM was only 70 yards from home. jmo
Concerned Papa
05-03-2012, 04:29 PM
He would have had to be outside in order to lock the patio doors, since they are on the outside perimeter of the patio fence. JMO
I'm not following you. What patio fence perimeter?
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 04:36 PM
I don't think the State would base their view of inconsistencies on anything minor, or a misstatement by the defendant. These have to be of the "big old lies" kind that concluded he needed to be charged with 2nd degree murder. We're not talking about those, he was wearing a red sweater when it was a jacket types of inconsistencies. We are talking "whoppers", IMO. jmo
I certainly hope your right for their sake.
Sherbie
05-03-2012, 04:36 PM
He would have had to be outside in order to lock the patio doors, since they are on the outside perimeter of the patio fence. JMO
I'm not sure we're all thinking of patio doors in the same way. To me, patio doors would be the sliding glass type doors that lead from a home to the patio. Sounds like you may be talking about gate-type doors on a fence surrounding a patio?
chefmom
05-03-2012, 04:40 PM
We reeeeeeally need a doc dump! Bad! We are on thread number 36 with minimal info to go on. I hope they release some info to us soon! Should we put out the Muzikman signal?
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 04:40 PM
Trayvon Martin's Reported Body Location 1 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGaNK8hN0tA)
This is what Mr. Martin was told by LE but the exact location was not pointed out to him at the time. Ironically now it appears TM was further along the path than Mr. Martin was told. MOM admits TM was only 70 yards from home. jmo
Sorry, I can't watch this video at the moment. Does it state that TM's feet were pointing toward the concrete sidewalk? I'll check it out later if it does.
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 04:42 PM
Zimmerman admitted under oath to making five statements at the bond hearing. So maybe he meant only 2 of the 5 statements were inconsistent????? jmo
Requoting part of a quote that you were replying to:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That part was said when he was being questioned about whether he felt remorseful for what had happened. It was NOT an admission to making 5 statements. JMO
Further down SA asks the question about the inconsistencies in those five statements.
suzihawk
05-03-2012, 04:43 PM
In the words of Tom Petty......The waiting is the hardest part...
I'd love to see them also.
My top 3 evidence items are:
1. Forensics you mentioned above
2. GZs actual statements
3. TM autopsy and TOX results
It's a shame they didn't do an alcohol and tox test on Zimmeman as well as the victim.
Looking SO forward to a doc dump.
raeann
05-03-2012, 04:49 PM
I'm not sure we're all thinking of patio doors in the same way. To me, patio doors would be the sliding glass type doors that lead from a home to the patio. Sounds like you may be talking about gate-type doors on a fence surrounding a patio?
There are no outside gates on the patios in that complex....there is only a single panel of privacy fence. The backs are completely open to the grass area and there are NO outside gates at all. NONE. The only patio doors would be either sliding glass doors or glass french style doors, from the photos of the back of the condos, they appear to be of the sliding type.
The post that stated there were gates in some sort of outside fencing is incorrect, this can be easily seen from all the photos of that area.
Here is a photo that shows the area well.....
http://www.daylife.com/photo/050B73N8gugSi?__site=daylife&q=George+Michael
Sherbie
05-03-2012, 04:52 PM
Thanks, raeann. I didn't come into this case on the board here til just recently and had to skim-read to try to catch up, so I haven't seen all the diagrams/photos, etc. I appreciate the clarification! :)
Lovelymountains
05-03-2012, 04:57 PM
On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, but yesterday, many of the TM supporters were calling for the HEAD of WHOEVER leaked the school info. Quoting FERPA, listing Florida LAW, calling for peole to be FIRED over it, maybe even PROSECUTED. Of course, THAT was the info that listed criminal acts by TM. Now that the TEACHER, whom they KNOW THE NAME OF, has said something POSITIVE, while ALSO releasing confidential information about the discipline record, can't even be question about TRUTH. They believe her WHOLE HEARTEDLY, and are defending her from people pointing out inconsistencies.
So why not call for her to be FIRED? She BROKE THE LAW and released CONFIDENTIAL discplinary records, why the change is stance? :waitasec:
In my opinion, law breakers should be prosecuted no matter what the offense is. If this teacher said Trayvon was an a and b student, that is confidential information. However saying that Trayvon majored in cheerfulness is an opinion and I see nothing wrong with expressing that. Obviously that is not a part of any record. As to accusations of theft or vandalism, which are unproven in any case or other acts calling for discplinary measures, I believe minors have certain legal protections which adults do not have and releasing this information, true or not, is a violation of Trayvon's right to this protection. IMO
Lovelymountains
05-03-2012, 04:59 PM
It's a shame they didn't do an alcohol and tox test on Zimmeman as well as the victim.
Looking SO forward to a doc dump.
I'm chomping at the bit to see Zimmerman's medical records, if they exist.
Concerned Papa
05-03-2012, 05:01 PM
The few bits and pieces of what we've been told regarding George's statements to LE, IMO, are very similar and certainly NOT inconsistent with one another. It's the same story every time you read it. It doesn't matter whether it's Robert Z's account of a reenactment:
The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered. The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground.
Mr. Zimmerman’s father watched from nearby. “They started where his vehicle was,” he recalled. “They walked him down the sidewalk and to the end of the sidewalk, to the street where he got an address and then walked him back towards his vehicle, near where the incident occurred.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?pagewanted=7&_r=4&hp
his detailed version from the Sean Hannity interview.....:
ZIMMERMAN: From where George's vehicle was, there's a sidewalk that goes to the next street over. Off of that sidewalk there's another sidewalk that goes between two rows of townhomes……George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going. [2:08]
ZIMMERMAN: When the dispatcher said we know longer need you to do that, and George acknowledged OK. He no longer knew where Trayvon was. [2:26]
He continued walking down the sidewalk directly in front of him to the next street to get an address. He got an address.
He was walking back to his vehicle.
Trayvon came from his left side…from that area where the sidewalks meet…and started beating him.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/04/05/exclusive-george-zimmermans-father-defends-son-trayvon-martin-shooting?page=2#ixzz1svJVUFyf
the "leaked" and verified Orlando Sentinel article.....:
This is what the Sentinel has learned about Zimmerman's account to investigators:
Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. [2:08]
When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that. [2:26]
There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear………..
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMSanfordLeak-1.jpg
or from the Bond Hearing transcript.....:
O'MARA: Mr. Zimmerman gave a statement that very night, did he not?
GILBREATH: Yes.
O'MARA: And within that statement, he got out of his car………..and began to go towards the person. [2:08]
O'MARA: And then he said he went back around and went towards his car, did he not?
GILBREATH: In his statement after he was told not to by the dispatcher. [2:26]
O'MARA: Got you.
GILBREATH: He says that he continued on to find a street sign and then went back to his car.
O'MARA: "I turned around and went back to my car"…..he was assaulted by Mr. Martin
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
They're all more or less the same simple story. GZ got out of his vehicle and followed TM for 18 seconds......then continued ahead (140 feet) to the next street for an address......got the address and was walking back to his vehicle (97 feet) when TM attacked him. Simple, consistent story, no doubt.
Wonder if any of the police officers checked the time when this reenactment stroll started and ended?
raeann
05-03-2012, 05:03 PM
Thanks, raeann. I didn't come into this case on the board here til just recently and had to skim-read to try to catch up, so I haven't seen all the diagrams/photos, etc. I appreciate the clarification! :)
no problem.....that source has several really good photos of the complex, including one with a white truck parked in what is assumed to be the approximate area where GZ left his vehicle that night....
suzihawk
05-03-2012, 05:15 PM
There are no outside gates on the patios in that complex....there is only a single panel of privacy fence. The backs are completely open to the grass area and there are NO outside gates at all. NONE. The only patio doors would be either sliding glass doors or glass french style doors, from the photos of the back of the condos, they appear to be of the sliding type.
The post that stated there were gates in some sort of outside fencing is incorrect, this can be easily seen from all the photos of that area.
Here is a photo that shows the area well.....
http://www.daylife.com/photo/050B73N8gugSi?__site=daylife&q=George+Michael
Does anyone know what those white square-ish things in the grass area to the right are?
Just K
05-03-2012, 05:17 PM
Something just came to me:
At the time of the first questioning and at the time of the re-enactment, GZ, the police, RZ Sr nor any of the "witnesses" knew that TM was on a phone call at the exact moment that he and Trayvon came face to face and less than a minute later Trayvon was dead.
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 05:21 PM
I'm not following you. What patio fence perimeter?
John's patio was closed in by three walls, one upon which there was a gate. It was the brown one you see in the videos taken that night.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 05:21 PM
On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, but yesterday, many of the TM supporters were calling for the HEAD of WHOEVER leaked the school info. Quoting FERPA, listing Florida LAW, calling for peole to be FIRED over it, maybe even PROSECUTED. Of course, THAT was the info that listed criminal acts by TM. Now that the TEACHER, whom they KNOW THE NAME OF, has said something POSITIVE, while ALSO releasing confidential information about the discipline record, can't even be question about TRUTH. They believe her WHOLE HEARTEDLY, and are defending her from people pointing out inconsistencies.
So why not call for her to be FIRED? She BROKE THE LAW and released CONFIDENTIAL discplinary records, why the change is stance? :waitasec:
I don't think that a lot of posts were deleted, you may have missed the move from the thread #35 to the new thread #36. The thread #35 where we were yesterday still has 112 pages.
Just K
05-03-2012, 05:26 PM
Respectfully, do you have a link to this? I thought we don't even know the exact location where the body was located, much less the positioning.
Yes, that would be significant. I haven't heard that until now.
Just K
05-03-2012, 05:31 PM
In the words of Tom Petty......The waiting is the hardest part...
I'd love to see them also.
My top 3 evidence items are:
1. Forensics you mentioned above
2. GZs actual statements
3. TM autopsy and TOX results
In addition to those three items, I would like to know where they found the:
1. Ear bud/buds?
2. TM's Phone
3. The can or cans of tea
I would like to know if the ear bud/buds were still in his ear/ears
highflyer
05-03-2012, 05:35 PM
On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, but yesterday, many of the TM supporters were calling for the HEAD of WHOEVER leaked the school info. Quoting FERPA, listing Florida LAW, calling for peole to be FIRED over it, maybe even PROSECUTED. Of course, THAT was the info that listed criminal acts by TM. Now that the TEACHER, whom they KNOW THE NAME OF, has said something POSITIVE, while ALSO releasing confidential information about the discipline record, can't even be question about TRUTH. They believe her WHOLE HEARTEDLY, and are defending her from people pointing out inconsistencies.
So why not call for her to be FIRED? She BROKE THE LAW and released CONFIDENTIAL discplinary records, why the change is stance? :waitasec:
We are posting in #36 now. A few posts may be gone but I think you will find most of them intact in #35 if you wish to read them. If the teacher released confidential information, then the teacher should be terminated.
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 05:41 PM
I'm not sure we're all thinking of patio doors in the same way. To me, patio doors would be the sliding glass type doors that lead from a home to the patio. Sounds like you may be talking about gate-type doors on a fence surrounding a patio?
I'm not real sure about whether John actually said gate, or door, though I think he said door. I cant bear listening to the 9-11 calls again lol. I do know his patio was one of the enclosed ones, and would have to either have a gate or a door. Either way, he would have HAD to be outside in order to lock it. JMO
Just K
05-03-2012, 05:45 PM
I would also like to know if GZ had any blood on his hands or clothing?
And, did they take his jacket, shirt, pants, shoes, flashlights or belt for examination?
Did GZ have any concrete type material, dirt, debris or grass mixed in with the blood on the back of his head?
Finally, was Trayvon's hood still up?
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 05:45 PM
Does anyone know what those white square-ish things in the grass area to the right are?
Looks like water meters to me. Someone said they use plastic covers for them. Ours here are made of cast iron.
:moo:
Concerned Papa
05-03-2012, 05:47 PM
John's patio was closed in by three walls, one upon which there was a gate. It was the brown one you see in the videos taken that night.
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMJohn.png
According to this video, their interview of John, and the Seminole County Appraiser's site, I believe you will find that John lives in the unit next to the one on the end with the screen enclosure you seem to be referencing.
John's unit has no enclosure.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
The thumbnail image below is from the Seminole Appraiser's site with his last name and co owner's name removed.
http://scpaweb.scpafl.org/v3/
Just K
05-03-2012, 05:49 PM
Looks like water meters to me. Someone said they use plastic covers for them. Ours here are made of cast iron.
:moo:
I see similar things popping up in older neighborhoods, too. Maybe they are switching from the old metal lids to these things. They could also be drainage but they don't appear to have slats or slots in them.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 05:53 PM
Requoting part of a quote that you were replying to:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That part was said when he was being questioned about whether he felt remorseful for what had happened. It was NOT an admission to making 5 statements. JMO
Further down SA asks the question about the inconsistencies in those five statements.
I think it was pretty clear what SA asked him and GZ answer was clear. He answered both questions. "Yes" there were 5 statement and "all the names run together" (so he could not identify the officers). One yes is a positive statement and the other is a negative response. So he was answering two questions. jmo
Emeralgem
05-03-2012, 05:57 PM
I would also like to know if GZ had any blood on his hands or clothing?
And, did they take his jacket, shirt, pants, shoes, flashlights or belt for examination?
Did GZ have any concrete type material, dirt, debris or grass mixed in with the blood on the back of his head?
Finally, was Trayvon's hood still up?
Also, was there any blood on the sidewalk where GZ claims TM was bashing his head? Were any pictures taken that night of the sidewalk and the spot where GZ is claiming his head was being bashed? JMHO
Reader
05-03-2012, 06:03 PM
A bit like what happens here, in fact.
He didn't make a statement that he's sorry when he was questioned. No, wait, he doesn't remember. No, wait, he believes he did. Yes, in fact he is fairly certain that he did. He even remembers there were both males and females in the room. He doesn't remember what he said. Oh, he remembers he felt sorry. He didn't know if the officers were going to communicate it to the family, he just made the statement. No, wait, he actually asked them to communicate it to the family and they agreed.
Thanks for that quote of GZ on the stand.....golly gee, he sure gets the 'truth' confused easily...good luck on cross examination....makes me believe he and the truth are kinda stangers, eh? IMO
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE=Concerned Papa;7868579]http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMJohn.png
According to this video, their interview of John, and the Seminole County Appraiser's site, I believe you will find that John lives in the unit next to the one on the end with the screen enclosure you seem to be referencing.
John's unit has no enclosure.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
The thumbnail image below is from the Seminole Appraiser's site with his last name and co owner's name removed.
Papa,
There is also an owner named JON.. spelled different, but pronounced the same as John. Per the Seminole appraisers site, his apt, is 2861 Retreat View Circle, which is down the stretch that GZ walked to get the address for dispatch. Directly overlooking the T.
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 06:15 PM
I think it was pretty clear what SA asked him and GZ answer was clear. He answered both questions. "Yes" there were 5 statement and "all the names run together" (so he could not identify the officers). One yes is a positive statement and the other is a negative response. So he was answering two questions. jmo
I guess I will have to watch the bond hearing again, because I am pretty sure that when he said all the names run together, was when he was trying to remember who he told that he felt sorry for Trayvon's parents. I really don't remember him saying that very same phrase twice..Will listen again later. :moo:
suzihawk
05-03-2012, 06:18 PM
Is secrecy justified in George Zimmerman case?
Experts question whether evidence can remain under wraps
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/item/0/-/j4gnokz/-/index.html
Interesting information.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 06:23 PM
Something just came to me:
At the time of the first questioning and at the time of the re-enactment, GZ, the police, RZ Sr nor any of the "witnesses" knew that TM was on a phone call at the exact moment that he and Trayvon came face to face and less than a minute later Trayvon was dead.
We still dont know that with certainty
highflyer
05-03-2012, 06:29 PM
Is secrecy justified in George Zimmerman case?
Experts question whether evidence can remain under wraps
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/item/0/-/j4gnokz/-/index.html
Interesting information.
Good read. Thanks.
pcrum12
05-03-2012, 06:33 PM
I'm not talking about the inconsistencies which the investigator rightfully indentified as inconsistencies within the statements he gave. I'm talking about the fact that he just testified and agreed that he gave 5 statements and then later claimed he only gave 3 statements. That, in itself, is an inconsistent statement. On the stand he have proven he has some credibility problems. jmo
per Karmady post above: snipped
Also, iirc, although he answers a question with the number 5 in it with "yes, sir," that is immediately followed by his recollection that he gave 3 statements and his denial that they were inconsistent. That section of the transcript was posted in the last thread.
eta: here it is. I was wrong about "followed," the yes, sir "followed"
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
GZ CLEARLY answers the question about being questioned 4 or 5 times with: "I REMEMBER GIVING THREE STATEMENTS, YES SIR."
vlpate
05-03-2012, 06:33 PM
I think GZ's statement comes into question because TM's feet were facing the pavement. If GZ only moved his head slightly to get it off the cement sidewalk just prior to shooting TM how did TM's body get so far away from the pavement and his head facing the building if he was on top of GZ in that location. Plus GZ claims TM attacked him on the cut through cross walk when TM's body was found yards away from the cut through area. Plus one statement was that TM fell backwards but was found face down with his hands under his body. jmo
IIRC, Tracy Martin stated the direction of his body, which he was not told by LE.
Another version by Tracy Martin: ""At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.'" The Martin family has been telling their story as part of a campaign to have Zimmerman arrested. He himself has kept quiet." LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-world-heard-cries-183813181.html)
Since they were said to be "wrestling", I wouldn't expect them to stay in the same exact spot where the initial altercation occurred.
JMO
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 06:34 PM
Is secrecy justified in George Zimmerman case?
Experts question whether evidence can remain under wraps
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/item/0/-/j4gnokz/-/index.html
Interesting information.
Great find on that article. Wonder if the MSM will sue the prosecutor.
Concerned Papa
05-03-2012, 06:34 PM
Papa,
There is also an owner named JON.. spelled different, but pronounced the same as John. Per the Seminole appraisers site, his apt, is 2861 Retreat View Circle, which is down the stretch that GZ walked to get the address for dispatch. Directly overlooking the T.
I'm aware of "Jon" at 2861 Retreat View, however he is not witness "John". I understand the confusion, but let me point out two things.
This is 2861 Retreat View:
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMSneak.jpg
Notice the exterior paint scheme? Alternating buildings are darker in body color with white trim as is this building where "Jon" owns.
Now watch the video and listen to the interview of "John". It is clearly the witness that alleges to have seen the red sweater on bottom, etc. His interview is word for word what has been widely discussed and reported.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Notice the color scheme of "John's" building and addy of 1221 Twin Trees Lane. It is the lighter body with darker trim.
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMJohn.png
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 06:36 PM
I'm aware of "Jon" at 2861 Retreat View, however he is not witness "John". I understand the confusion, but let me point out two things.
This is 2861 Retreat View:
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMSneak.jpg
Notice the exterior paint scheme? Alternating buildings are darker in body color with white trim as is this building where "Jon" owns.
Now watch the video and listen to the interview of "John". It is clearly the witness that alleges to have seen the red sweater on bottom, etc. His interview is word for word what has been widely discussed and reported.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Notice the color scheme of "John's" building and addy of 1221 Twin Trees Lane. It is the lighter body with darker trim.
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMJohn.png
Nice work.
LynnM
05-03-2012, 06:37 PM
Something just came to me:
At the time of the first questioning and at the time of the re-enactment, GZ, the police, RZ Sr nor any of the "witnesses" knew that TM was on a phone call at the exact moment that he and Trayvon came face to face and less than a minute later Trayvon was dead.
Yes and Zimmerman Sr, says he doesn't believe that was true. He said he is thankful that the FBI is involved because they will confirm that Trayvon was not on the phone with the friend.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032812-exclusive-robert-zimmerman-interview
grammieto5
05-03-2012, 06:37 PM
Would you expect those statements to read verbatim? I contend that inconsistencies may be a mountain, or they may be a mole hill. There COULD be reasonable explainations for inconsistencies, or they may not be.
if I was the SA, I would not rest my case on inconsistencies in the statements of someone that was just involved in a fatal shooting. I sure hope they have more evidence than that. I would venture to say that this event has been the most stressful event in GZs life, and if there are small inconsistencies in his statements, I would not be surprised.
I would expect main points of his statements to be the same, the little unimportant issues no. I believe the SA has more information/evidence then we do. I would very much like to see Trayvons autopsy report, I believe the truth is there, I also believe it will not match any of GZ statements. I also believe it was in part because of the inconsistencies that charges were brought against GZ.
Something I would like to see them clarify (because it seems inconsistent or otherwise mysterious to me) is this:
If I've understood GZ's story correctly or if it's been relayed correctly by the various second hand sources he says he saw TM from his vehicle when he was driving to Target. He thought TM was suspicious, stopped, parked his truck and called 911 to report a suspicious individual. He exited his truck and started following TM on foot but was almost immediately told to stop by the dispatcher, which he did. He changed direction and went to get an address from somewhere that TM wasn't at, then turned back to walk to his truck. At this point an irate TM attacked him and asked him, why are you following me, or what's your problem homes, or something to that effect. Possibly he asked first and attacked second, I'm not completely sure.
Does this sound about right?
If so... why did TM attack GZ? Whatever had GZ done to attract his attention at all? Why on earth would he be mad at somebody who sits in his truck having a phone conversation, then walks a very short distance towards him, then turns and goes away? He didn't own the retreat so he wouldn't have had the expectation that he should have all the sidewalks for himself. It wouldn't have appeared like GZ was following him if he turned away very shortly. GZ says he didn't confront TM to make any demands of him.
So why would TM even notice him? Why would he think that GZ was following him? Why would he think that GZ had a problem? Why would he be mad enough to beat him up?
If TM had heard the 911 conversation he could have been mad about GZ reporting him but would he have started a fight if he knew that the police was already on the way? it sounds like a certain way to be busted, and the impression I get from the 911 call is that TM wasn't close enough to hear the conversation anyway.
Beautifully asked, summarized and worth repeating.
vlpate
05-03-2012, 06:42 PM
Something just came to me:
At the time of the first questioning and at the time of the re-enactment, GZ, the police, RZ Sr nor any of the "witnesses" knew that TM was on a phone call at the exact moment that he and Trayvon came face to face and less than a minute later Trayvon was dead.
Excellent point! Thus far, only the g/f says TM was on the phone w/her. I'd also like to know where his ear buds were found.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 06:43 PM
Yes and Zimmerman Sr, says he doesn't believe that was true. He said he is thankful that the FBI is involved because they will confirm that Trayvon was not on the phone with the friend.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032812-exclusive-robert-zimmerman-interview
I dont doubt they were on the phone at some point, but I dont believe that the girl friend was alarmed by anything she heard or else she would have called 911.
I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.
It's weird, though. Defendants are deemed suspicious if their stories change.
But there's also a famous legal case (I think it was litigation in re the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire) in which a lawyer DIScredited a witness by asking her to tell her story three times. When she told it exactly the same each time, the lawyer argued that she had memorized her story and wasn't describing an honest memory.
So both inconsistency and consistency are held against witnesses.
katydid23
05-03-2012, 06:45 PM
Excellent point! Thus far, only the g/f says TM was on the phone w/her. I'd also like to know where his ear buds were found.
Bjut don't his cell records and her cell records probably match up?
Reader
05-03-2012, 06:47 PM
But I believe the message SA was trying to get through to GZ was that those statements were recorded. Those very statements, IMO, would have been to determine what charges the DA should have brought against GZ. The charges now we know are 2nd degree murder. So what inconsistencies led them to believe that. Once those statements are released through discovery we will be able to check them out ourselves. Sometimes when people are inconsistent in the statements because those statements are not based entirely on the truth people are not aware of the inconsistencies and it would be only natural to answer absolutely not. jmo
And the detective testified that the statements GZ gave were also inconsistent with the evidence the SA has.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 06:49 PM
I guess I will have to watch the bond hearing again, because I am pretty sure that when he said all the names run together, was when he was trying to remember who he told that he felt sorry for Trayvon's parents. I really don't remember him saying that very same phrase twice..Will listen again later. :moo:
No. He never said it twice. There were two questions. He answered affirmative "yes" to the 5 statements (and we know there were at least 4). He then said he did not know their names which he would have answered, "No." regarding not knowing their names. There were two questions by SA. GZ answered yes to one questions and he did not know the names to the other. If GZ did not understand the question he would have told SA please explain. But he did not. He answered both questions. jmo
MaryAnn
05-03-2012, 06:50 PM
I dont doubt they were on the phone at some point, but I dont believe that the girl friend was alarmed by anything she heard or else she would have called 911.
Do you call 911 everytime you lose someone on a cell phone?
LambChop
05-03-2012, 06:51 PM
Bjut don't his cell records and her cell records probably match up?
She was going to testify before the Grand Jury I think they must. jmo
suzihawk
05-03-2012, 06:53 PM
Great find on that article. Wonder if the MSM will sue the prosecutor.
Both sides have said they want witness names withheld, out of fear for their safety and to prevent news media from interviewing witness about out what happened. But neither side bothered to file a motion asking Judge Lester to keep that information secret before the 15 day deadline was up.
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.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/item/1/-/j4gnojz/-/index.html
Desdemona
05-03-2012, 06:54 PM
By that token, we should throw out all five of Zimmerman's statements recounting the night of the shooting. After all, not only did he lie, he lied under oath about not knowing how old Trayvon was.How do we know whether GZ lied?
We have not heard GZ's story yet. I have seen nothing yet to indicate that GZ has lied about what happened that night, whether under oath or while cooperating with LE's investigation, about how old he thought TM was, or about anything else. That's not to say he has not lied or perjured himself, but I've not seen proof of that yet. JMO
(Pointing this out because your post doesn't indicate whether you believe it is a fact, or are merely expressing your opinion that he has lied under oath. JMO)
/bbm
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 06:56 PM
I wonder which of these statements was really Tray's last words. First they told us it was " you got me.", and now we are being told that it was really "Okay, you got it." That he repeated "Okay, you got it" two times, and then fell face down to the ground. I keep playing, and replaying that over and over again in my head.. and it keeps pointing me back to one thing. The end of the call to the non-emergency line.. Coincidence much?
grammieto5
05-03-2012, 06:58 PM
Is this normal, for the person who has murdered someone to go back to the scene of the crime to do a reenactment of the crime, and to have his father there? Who was there to speak for Trayvon?
I dont doubt they were on the phone at some point, but I dont believe that the girl friend was alarmed by anything she heard or else she would have called 911.
And said what?
"My call with my boyfriend was disconnected. He is somewhere 250 miles away; I don't know the address. But I heard a stranger ask him a couple of questions."
Somehow I don't see 911 jumping on that one... I'm not sure *I* would have known what to do under those circumstances and I'm a lot older than 15.
MaryAnn
05-03-2012, 07:01 PM
Yes and Zimmerman Sr, says he doesn't believe that was true. He said he is thankful that the FBI is involved because they will confirm that Trayvon was not on the phone with the friend.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032812-exclusive-robert-zimmerman-interview
of course GZ Sr is going to say that. How would he know whether or not Trayvon was on the phone? That's what teenagers do, talk on the phone all the time!!
It's so sad that Trayvon isn't here to tell his side of the story!
LambChop
05-03-2012, 07:02 PM
How do we know whether GZ lied?
We have not heard GZ's story yet. I have seen nothing yet to indicate that GZ has lied about what happened that night, whether under oath or while cooperating with LE's investigation, about how old he thought TM was, or about anything else. That's not to say he has not lied or perjured himself, but I've not seen proof of that yet. JMO
(Pointing this out because your post doesn't indicate whether you believe it is a fact, or are merely expressing your opinion that he has lied under oath. JMO)
/bbm
When the LE dispatcher asked GZ how old he thought TM was he said late teens. On the stand he said a little younger than he was. (25, 26???). That's the lie. Could be he forgot what he told the dispatcher. I think GZ may have a history of telling people what they want to hear. At the bond hearing he was clearly trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the Martins. jmo
LambChop
05-03-2012, 07:05 PM
Is this normal, for the person who has murdered someone to go back to the scene of the crime to do a reenactment of the crime, and to have his father there? Who was there to speak for Trayvon?
At that point he was considered SYG untouchable. I'm sure he thought it was all over but agreed to the reenactment because he was free and clear. Not sure they will be able to use that in court if he was considered free to go. jmo
Sherbie
05-03-2012, 07:06 PM
Is secrecy justified in George Zimmerman case?
Experts question whether evidence can remain under wraps
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-secrecy-justified-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/12514756/-/item/0/-/j4gnokz/-/index.html
Interesting information.
Very interesting, indeed...thank you, Suzi! When we were discussing this the other day, I tried to research the FL Rules of Criminal Procedure to find an answer. I could see where the state had 15 days from demand of the defense to turn over discovery, and then the defense having 15 days from that time to turn over their own to the state. But I couldn't find a thing about the state allowing public access to discovery if the defense hadn't accepted it within the 15 days.
I imagine it would be worth the big bucks it would take to litigate this for major media outlets. The sooner they can get something new, the more viewers and clicks they'll receive. Maybe some of the media will do a joint motion for access.
Very nice reporting by Sean Lavin. Great to see someone really research the matter and explain it so well.
zenreaper
05-03-2012, 07:11 PM
And said what?
"My call with my boyfriend was disconnected. He is somewhere 250 miles away; I don't know the address. But I heard a stranger ask him a couple of questions."
Somehow I don't see 911 jumping on that one... I'm not sure *I* would have known what to do under those circumstances and I'm a lot older than 15.
No, but the phrase, "I was on the phone with my boyfriend who stated to me that someone was following him and he was scared, then I heard a scuffle and the line went dead. He is not answering his phone now and I am worried..." THAT would have gotten a response.
zenreaper
05-03-2012, 07:12 PM
When the LE dispatcher asked GZ how old he thought TM was he said late teens. On the stand he said a little younger than he was. (25, 26???). That's the lie. Could be he forgot what he told the dispatcher. I think GZ may have a history of telling people what they want to hear. At the bond hearing he was clearly trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the Martins. jmo
Easily explained, because "a little younger" is an undefined term. he is 28, 11 years younger could BE "a little younger" to him.
MaryAnn
05-03-2012, 07:14 PM
No, but the phrase, "I was on the phone with my boyfriend who stated to me that someone was following him and he was scared, then I heard a scuffle and the line went dead. He is not answering his phone now and I am worried..." THAT would have gotten a response.
There was barely a response to Trayvon's body laying there dead on the grass. They did a half-arse crime scene investigation and did a drug test on a dead young man laying there in the grass and you really really think they would have rushed out there if Trayvon's gf would have called 911. I think that is a fantasy.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 07:18 PM
Easily explained, because "a little younger" is an undefined term. he is 28, 11 years younger could BE "a little younger" to him.
I don't think so because the context of the statement was imo intended to convey that he thought TM was older than what he turned out to be. He also said that he didn't know if TM was armed. It's an explanation intended to imply that lack of information was a factor here.
It makes no sense for him to say, "I thought he was just a little younger" in the way of an explanation if it means, "I thought he was about 17 and I was right".
Sybrina Fulton had said she wanted to know if GZ knew that TM was a minor and GZ was trying to respond to that that he didn't.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 07:19 PM
Easily explained, because "a little younger" is an undefined term. he is 28, 11 years younger could BE "a little younger" to him.
Nah......that wouldn't fly even at my age. lol
MaryAnn
05-03-2012, 07:20 PM
Easily explained, because "a little younger" is an undefined term. he is 28, 11 years younger could BE "a little younger" to him.
I truly don't understand what difference his age makes. It would have been ok to shoot him if he were a little older??? :banghead:
highflyer
05-03-2012, 07:21 PM
Easily explained, because "a little younger" is an undefined term. he is 28, 11 years younger could BE "a little younger" to him.
At age 28, 11 years is a lot.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 07:24 PM
At age 28, 11 years is a lot.
Yes, if you were rounding off GZ would be closer to 30 than 20 and TM just turned 17. jmo
Karmady
05-03-2012, 07:25 PM
Easily explained, because "a little younger" is an undefined term. he is 28, 11 years younger could BE "a little younger" to him.
I think it's possible that once he saw Trayvon up close he thought he was older than he had originally thought when seeing him from a distance. Particularly since Trayvon was quite a bit taller than George, and quite a bit taller than average, as well.
Not saying that's the true explanation. Just one thing that occurred to me.
zenreaper
05-03-2012, 07:25 PM
I truly don't understand what difference his age makes. It would have been ok to shoot him if he were a little older??? :banghead:
Well, lets be BLATANTLY honest, "White Man Shoots Black Child" makes for a better headline than, "Latino Man Shoots Black Man"
I don't see the significance either. But I think those opposing GZ's side of the story are trying to make a case that if he lied about the age, he MUST have lied about the shooting. Personally, I bet Abe Lincoln still occasionally told a fib, that doesn't make him a liar in everything.
Karmady
05-03-2012, 07:25 PM
I truly don't understand what difference his age makes. It would have been ok to shoot him if he were a little older??? :banghead:
It was one of the questions Trayvon's mother specifically said she wanted an answer to, iirc
pcrum12
05-03-2012, 07:26 PM
He would have had to be outside in order to lock the patio doors, since they are on the outside perimeter of the patio fence. JMO
You Lost me mommakk51. Not at all being snarky, just think I'm not getting what you are saying. Are you saying he had to be outside his patio doors to lock them? I'm sure I'm just not getting what you are saying because that doesn't make sense. TIA for explaining this to me.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 07:27 PM
Well, lets be BLATANTLY honest, "White Man Shoots Black Child" makes for a better headline than, "Latino Man Shoots Black Man"
I don't see the significance either. But I think those opposing GZ's side of the story are trying to make a case that if he lied about the age, he MUST have lied about the shooting. Personally, I bet Abe Lincoln still occasionally told a fib, that doesn't make him a liar in everything.
No but how often did Abe Lincoln lie under oath?
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 07:27 PM
Do you call 911 everytime you lose someone on a cell phone?
If they tell me they are being followed, that they are scared and I hear the beginning of a confrontation, I would call 911 every time.
katydid23
05-03-2012, 07:27 PM
When the LE dispatcher asked GZ how old he thought TM was he said late teens. On the stand he said a little younger than he was. (25, 26???). That's the lie. Could be he forgot what he told the dispatcher. I think GZ may have a history of telling people what they want to hear. At the bond hearing he was clearly trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the Martins. jmo
At the bond hearing he said he did not know, at the time, how old Trayvon was. And he probably didn't know for sure. Just because he gave an estimate to the dispatcher, a guess, of how old he seemed to be, that does not mean he KNEW how old Trayvon was.
So he did not LIE on the stand. He didn't know for sure how old he was, and he didn't know if he was armed or not. Those are not lies, imo.
LinasK
05-03-2012, 07:28 PM
No, but the phrase, "I was on the phone with my boyfriend who stated to me that someone was following him and he was scared, then I heard a scuffle and the line went dead. He is not answering his phone now and I am worried..." THAT would have gotten a response.
Not from Miami PD, it wouldn't.:snooty: It was just stated they are 250 miles away, and she didn't have an address to give Sanford PD, and they were already on their way!
mommakk51
05-03-2012, 07:31 PM
I'm aware of "Jon" at 2861 Retreat View, however he is not witness "John". I understand the confusion, but let me point out two things.
This is 2861 Retreat View:
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMSneak.jpg
Notice the exterior paint scheme? Alternating buildings are darker in body color with white trim as is this building where "Jon" owns.
Now watch the video and listen to the interview of "John". It is clearly the witness that alleges to have seen the red sweater on bottom, etc. His interview is word for word what has been widely discussed and reported.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Notice the color scheme of "John's" building and addy of 1221 Twin Trees Lane. It is the lighter body with darker trim.
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMJohn.png
Hmm,, yes, I do notice a color difference between the different rows of buildings, also duly noted that there was no enclosed patio on 2861. However, I found no John at all on Twin Trees Lane... maybe I am using the wrong site to search? Here is what I have:
http://www.seminoletax.org/dev/addresslist.asp?DataSearch=TWIN+TREES&Results=10&CurrentPage=1 :moo:
zenreaper
05-03-2012, 07:32 PM
No but how often did Abe Lincoln lie under oath?
Well, he WAS a lawyer, and one of his quotes, [Rufus Rockwell Wilson, Lincoln Among His Friends: A Sheaf of Intimate Memories (Philip Clark, "A Friend of Lincoln's New Salem Days"), p. 65.], is, "I hain't been caught Lying yet, and I don't mean to be."
Of course, from a person who has used many lawyers over the years, I have to point out that he said he hadn't been CAUGHT, not that he hadn't LIED, LMAO!
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 07:34 PM
At the bond hearing he said he did not know, at the time, how old Trayvon was. And he probably didn't know for sure. Just because he gave an estimate to the dispatcher, a guess, of how old he seemed to be, that does not mean he KNEW how old Trayvon was.
So he did not LIE on the stand. He didn't know for sure how old he was, and he didn't know if he was armed or not. Those are not lies, imo.
I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.
It was true he did not know how old TM was and that he did not know if TM was armed but the "i thought he was a little bit younger than I am" part was a lie unless he lied to the dispatcher when he said late teens.
IMO.
I don't think TM would have looked older when seen close up.
I think most people would be more likely to mistake the age of a tall guy seen from a distance as older.
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 07:34 PM
Easily explained, because "a little younger" is an undefined term. he is 28, 11 years younger could BE "a little younger" to him.
Not to mention late teens could mean 18 - 19.
LambChop
05-03-2012, 07:34 PM
At the bond hearing he said he did not know, at the time, how old Trayvon was. And he probably didn't know for sure. Just because he gave an estimate to the dispatcher, a guess, of how old he seemed to be, that does not mean he KNEW how old Trayvon was.
So he did not LIE on the stand. He didn't know for sure how old he was, and he didn't know if he was armed or not. Those are not lies, imo.
I don't think GZ response was because he did not know exactly how old TM was only that he was not a teen which is not consistent with what he told dispatch. TM was a lanky, still growing and had not filled out yet kid. He clearly was not a 25 plus something years old. jmo
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 07:35 PM
Well, he WAS a lawyer, and one of his quotes, [Rufus Rockwell Wilson, Lincoln Among His Friends: A Sheaf of Intimate Memories (Philip Clark, "A Friend of Lincoln's New Salem Days"), p. 65.], is, "I hain't been caught Lying yet, and I don't mean to be."
Of course, from a person who has used many lawyers over the years, I have to point out that he said he hadn't been CAUGHT, not that he hadn't LIED, LMAO!
Lawyers aren't under oath in court, are they? Unless they're the defendant or a witness.
deelytful1
05-03-2012, 07:35 PM
No, but the phrase, "I was on the phone with my boyfriend who stated to me that someone was following him and he was scared, then I heard a scuffle and the line went dead. He is not answering his phone now and I am worried..." THAT would have gotten a response.
Because she knew his exact location, right?
Desdemona
05-03-2012, 07:35 PM
I was just referring to how many statements GZ had given not necessarily that they were inconsistent. We know he gave an unrecorded statement to LE stating he shot TM. He also gave an unrecorded statement to the EMT that he kept calling for help. The narcotics officer took a statement which I'm assuming was recorded. The homocide detective took a statement which we can assume was recorded. He did a reenactment the next morning which would be another statement, recorded. And he admits to giving a statement on the evening of February 27th which IMO was recorded. So it does appear he gave more than 3 statements and at least 4 were recorded. Let me add, one would hope. jmoJumping off this post to ask:
At what point in all this, or in the timeline, did Serino reportedly tell Tracy Martin that GZ's story was "squeaky clean," and that he was going to try to catch him in a lie? TIA
MaryAnn
05-03-2012, 07:36 PM
It was one of the questions Trayvon's mother specifically said she wanted an answer to, iirc
Considering she lost her baby boy I would think there would be a lot of questions that Sabrina wants answered. GZ's explanation was self serving and totally ridiculous!
Phoenixfla
05-03-2012, 07:36 PM
There was barely a response to Trayvon's body laying there dead on the grass. They did a half-arse crime scene investigation and did a drug test on a dead young man laying there in the grass and you really really think they would have rushed out there if Trayvon's gf would have called 911. I think that is a fantasy.
They may not have but it sure would bolster her story had she made an attempt to report something.
Emeralgem
05-03-2012, 07:36 PM
Yes, if you were rounding off GZ would be closer to 30 than 20 and TM just turned 17. jmo
So TM in all reality was closer to being 15..JMHO
pcrum12
05-03-2012, 07:38 PM
The few bits and pieces of what we've been told regarding George's statements to LE, IMO, are very similar and certainly NOT inconsistent with one another. It's the same story every time you read it. It doesn't matter whether it's Robert Z's account of a reenactment:
his detailed version from the Sean Hannity interview.....:
the "leaked" and verified Orlando Sentinel article.....:
or from the Bond Hearing transcript.....:
They're all more or less the same simple story. GZ got out of his vehicle and followed TM for 18 seconds......then continued ahead (140 feet) to the next street for an address......got the address and was walking back to his vehicle (97 feet) when TM attacked him. Simple, consistent story, no doubt.
Wonder if any of the police officers checked the time when this reenactment stroll started and ended?
:rocker:
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 07:38 PM
Not to mention late teens could mean 18 - 19.
An age difference of 9 years would still be about one third of GZ's current age. I wouldn't call that just a little bit younger.
80 might be just a little bit younger when you're 89 but 9 or 10 years are the whole of his adult life so far.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0