What evidence does the prosecution have?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr.Fessel said:
I don't think Wolfinger ever denied meeting with Lee or LE that night.
Click to expand...

I believe his own words from the article linked above dispute your claim:

"I am outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter by Benjamin Crump," Wolfinger said. "I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred."
Click to expand...
 
AJ Noiter said:
So, Mr. Wolfinger's statement that investigators can make arrests at any "dadgum" time? It seems someone has taken a non-story and run with it, why oh why would Mr. Crump do that? Right, to try to get a non-story into the news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-usa-florida-shooting-prosecutor-idUSBRE83116420120402
Click to expand...

Dadgum it.....lol.....what police officer is going to go up against the Chief. Not even a homocide detective will disagree in public when a Chief tells him this is what we are going to do. There was a charge on the reports of the officers, Wolfinger dropped those charges using SYG. Patrol officers are on patrol and would have had little to do with the office politics. That would have been between the homocide detective and the Chief. However a patrol officer who did not agree could have had a conversation with Crump. jmo
 
Dr.Fessel said:
I don't think Wolfinger ever denied meeting with Lee or LE that night.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it RZ, Sr.'s statement that he never told the chief, SA or LE that night that he was a judge?????? And didn't Wolfinger admit the decision was his that SYG applied. And didn't GZ go home that night because the charges were dropped??? jmo
 
cityslick said:
MOM is actually going to have something in this case that most defense attorneys do not have and that will be using the testimony of the SPD officers against the state. He's going to hammer all of them on what was their reasoning behind not charging GZ, what led them to that conclusion, etc. It looks like they did do some sort of investigation in the early going with taking pictures and statements. He's going to use that evidence and show it to SPD and say, what does this show you and how did that influence your reasoning on not charging GZ.
Click to expand...

If these witnesses were useful to the defense, I'm wondering why they are on the prosecution list? :waitasec:
 
LambChop said:
Dadgum it.....lol.....what police officer is going to go up against the Chief. Not even a homocide detective will disagree in public when a Chief tells him this is what we are going to do. There was a charge on the reports of the officers, Wolfinger dropped those charges using SYG. Patrol officers are on patrol and would have had little to do with the office politics. That would have been between the homocide detective and the Chief. However a patrol officer who did not agree could have had a conversation with Crump. jmo
Click to expand...

So we have Mr. Wolfinger's statement that he never had any communication or meeting regarding the arrest of Mr. Zimmerman on the 26th or 27th. We also have him stating that they could make arrests anytime they wanted. We have Mr. Serino stating that he never made a claim that he wanted to make an arrest, and we have 3 people calling this claim an outright lie. We also have Mr. Crump -avoiding- the question of whether or not he made up the claim - note: not denying and not admitting to.. AVOIDING. Then he flatly stated that he had not seen an affidavit in regards to arresting Mr. Zimmerman.

Somehow 3 statements being stated as strong, confident statements vs one weak avoidance.. and somehow the impression exists that Mr. Crump's claim is still true.

:banghead:
 
As for possible evidence that the prosecution has, is it possible that GZ's phone lines were recorded? I find his call records on the evidence list interesting...
 
HiHater said:
If these witnesses were useful to the defense, I'm wondering why they are on the prosecution list? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

State has to establish what happened that night and can only do it by calling SPD officers and detectives. The state cannot get around the fact that the chief of the SPD, along with the prosecutor made the decision, based off of what they knew at that time (which includes GZ's statements, however inconsistent they were) to not charge him.
 
HiHater said:
As for possible evidence that the prosecution has, is it possible that GZ's phone lines were recorded? I find his call records on the evidence list interesting...
Click to expand...

All they had to do was get them from the cell carrier for whatever dates they wanted.
 
AJ Noiter said:
So we have Mr. Wolfinger's statement that he never had any communication or meeting regarding the arrest of Mr. Zimmerman on the 26th or 27th. We also have him stating that they could make arrests anytime they wanted. We have Mr. Serino stating that he never made a claim that he wanted to make an arrest, and we have 3 people calling this claim an outright lie. We also have Mr. Crump -avoiding- the question of whether or not he made up the claim - note: not denying and not admitting to.. AVOIDING. Then he flatly stated that he had not seen an affidavit in regards to arresting Mr. Zimmerman.

Somehow 3 statements being stated as strong, confident statements vs one weak avoidance.. and somehow the impression exists that Mr. Crump's claim is still true.

:banghead:
Click to expand...

The worst part is that it's all over the web. People keep blindly referencing this mysterious affidavit as fact because so many "news" outlets posted Crump's allegation without any fact checking. It's absolutely crazy. If there's an affidavit, it should not have been reported until the MSM had access to it and could report facts. Instead, they regurgitated what appears to be misinformation exactly how Crump fed it to them.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:
 
gxm said:
The worst part is that it's all over the web. People keep blindly referencing this mysterious affidavit as fact because so many "news" outlets posted Crump's allegation without any fact checking. It's absolutely crazy. If there's an affidavit, it should not have been reported until the MSM had access to it and could report facts. Instead, they regurgitated what appears to be misinformation exactly how Crump fed it to them.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:
Click to expand...

Didn't something similar happen with one of the witnesses?
 
Looks like the FBI personnel listed on the witness list are audio forensic experts. One of them, Kenneth Marr testified at the OJ Simpson robbery/kidnapping trial.
FBI audio analyst Kenneth Marr told the court that he was not able to authenticate the recordings on Riccio’s digital recorder.
Click to expand...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/17/fbi-expert-testifies-simpson-robberykidnapping-tri/

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for...tions/fsc/jan2007/report/2007_01_report01.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93646122/...t-filed-by-the-state-in-George-Zimmerman-case
 
LambChop said:
It was FT that gave that interview to the media. It shows how FT viewed GZ's state of mind. jmo
Click to expand...

I know, but I wasn't commenting on relevance. Just whether potential impeachment evidence would necessarily be among the items provided in the State's production. Have you looked at the list? Does it look like it's on there? I haven't been able to take a close look yet.
 
LambChop said:
Do you think the reason for all the CD's is that SA made it easier for MOM to view them when some of them would not need to be held up? For instance, the authopsy report? That could be released sooner than some of the other's that MOM might want to keep from being released until he can review them further? jmo
Click to expand...

I think it was probably more a product of organization issues. But, jmo, obviously.
 
HiHater said:
If these witnesses were useful to the defense, I'm wondering why they are on the prosecution list? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

Rules of Evidence. The prosecution must turn over all evidence, even that which may be exculpatory to Zimmerman, to the defense.
 
AJ Noiter said:
So we have Mr. Wolfinger's statement that he never had any communication or meeting regarding the arrest of Mr. Zimmerman on the 26th or 27th. We also have him stating that they could make arrests anytime they wanted. We have Mr. Serino stating that he never made a claim that he wanted to make an arrest, and we have 3 people calling this claim an outright lie. We also have Mr. Crump -avoiding- the question of whether or not he made up the claim - note: not denying and not admitting to.. AVOIDING. Then he flatly stated that he had not seen an affidavit in regards to arresting Mr. Zimmerman.

Somehow 3 statements being stated as strong, confident statements vs one weak avoidance.. and somehow the impression exists that Mr. Crump's claim is still true.

:banghead:
Click to expand...

BBM

Did Wolfinger really say that? Or did he just deny the meeting claimed by Crump ever took place? Take one person out of the meeting Crump mentioned and Wolfinger can claim the statement is not true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 242 more.
Total: 4,105 (members: 243, guests: 3,862)

Online statistics

Members online
243
Guests online
3,862
Total visitors
4,105
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,546
Messages
17,954,526
Members
228,530
Latest member
kac313
Back
Top