GZ Case - Defense Perspective

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
jjenny said:
He said he had no insight into who was screaming. IF FBI could arrive to any conclusion why does he have no insight?
Click to expand...

It could be because they are conducting their own investigation and until they are finished I doubt you will see much from the FBI. They aren't governed by the same rules as the state. He may not have insight because he has not seen their final report. He only is aware that there will be one. jmo
 
There is a ton of assuming and speculating going on in order to push public perception of GZ to an innocent man. The only facts in evidence? GZ put killer bullets in his gun. IMO, the only reason a person uses these bullets is to make sure and kill someone. GZ took his weapon on watch that night. GZ profiled TM by the way he LOOKED. GZ called 911 and was told not to follow TM. GZ disregarded LE instructions, took his weapon out of the truck, follwed TM and shot him dead. The other evidence on social media? <modsnipped>
 
LambChop said:
It could be because they are conducting their own investigation and until they are finished I doubt you will see much from the FBI. They aren't governed by the same rules as the state. He may not have insight because he has not seen their final report. He only is aware that there will be one. jmo
Click to expand...

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

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

What could be worse for GZ, not only the State is looking into this but the FBI and the Justice Department. Seems to me no stone will be unturned. jmo
 
LambChop said:
Not sure you followed the Anthony case but her attorney wanted information from them and they would not release it until they were good and ready. They don't have to and can sit on it for a long time until they do a formal report. It could be they are planning on running more tests. It could be there is some new software coming in or an expert they want to set up testing with. They don't answer to the State of Florida, nor will they answer to MOM. He will have to wait until the FBI decides they are ready to release information. I don't believe they are obligated to when they are still investigating a case. And they do have an open case unless someone has heard they have closed it. But I believe it is ongoing.

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

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

I did not watch CA nearly as closely. I felt (and still feel) that she was guilty. I am following this case much more closely because I am not convinced of GZs guilt.
 
The poll thread got me thinking again about "depraved mind," so I went looking for a case and found this one. This is the current standard in Fla., so this is what it will be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a muder 2 conviction.


An act which is imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind has further been defined as an act &#8220;that (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.&#8221; Conyers v. State, 569 So.2d 1360, 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
 
Karmady said:
The poll thread got me thinking again about "depraved mind," so I went looking for a case and found this one. This is the current standard in Fla., so this is what it will be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a muder 2 conviction.


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

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

I think the PCA originally had a racial slur where it now says "punks" (iirc) and that they are now going with "ill will" toward suspected criminals??? idk, but that's the best I can come up with lol
 
Karmady said:
The poll thread got me thinking again about "depraved mind," so I went looking for a case and found this one. This is the current standard in Fla., so this is what it will be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a muder 2 conviction.


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

Was it depraved mind or depraved indifference? I think there is a difference. jmo
 
LambChop said:
Was it depraved mind or depraved indifference? I think there is a difference. jmo
Click to expand...

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

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

Either way, it's a stretch here, imo.
 
Karmady said:
(1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another
Click to expand...

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

Karmady said:
(2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent
Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence of that yet.

Karmady said:
(3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
Click to expand...

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

Good find on the language though. Undoubtedly the jury instructions will read very similarly if it makes it to a jury.
 
Phoenixfla said:
I never understood how they can conclude anything without both voices to sample. I understand that the results show a certain percentage match, and those results must then be interpreted. I contend that it is possible that the match to TM's voice COULD have been a lower percentage than GMs, but without analysis of TMs voice also, the analysis is majorly flawed.
Click to expand...

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

a. The screams are unlikely to come from GZ.

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

c. The screams came from TM.

I certainly expect the defense to contest any test results derived from the screams. But the validity of the science is another (though obviously important) issue.
 
Phoenixfla said:
The only thing that GZ did that would be considered “certain to kill or do serious bodily harm” was pull the trigger of the gun.



I have seen no evidence of that yet.



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

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

They are "and" clauses, so all of the elements must be satisfied. I don't see anything that meets 2 w/o the hate crime element. jmo
 
Nova said:
I agree that would be ideal, but what we have now is how circumstantial evidence usually works:

a. The screams are unlikely to come from GZ.

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

c. The screams came from TM.

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

According to the expert:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is your software designed to compare screams to normal speach?

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

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

As for the expert that only uses his ears for comparison, I can't believe that he has ever testified in court based on what he hears.
 
Karmady said:
Funny you mention that b/c I initially searched and typed a post about depraved indifference, all for naught lol. The quote I posted is from a Florida murder 2 case and that is the standard. I also recall having posted using the words depraved mind and heart, so I think it is the correct standard.

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

Either way, it's a stretch here, imo.
Click to expand...

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

I do know my husband said his greatest fear was some do gooder who would decide to take the law into their own hands that would end up costing an innocent person or an officer their life. It was a problem 40 years ago and it's still a problem for LE today. JMO
 
O/T - I wish Google would exclude the news search results for sites that require payment for access.
 
Karmady said:
The poll thread got me thinking again about "depraved mind," so I went looking for a case and found this one. This is the current standard in Fla., so this is what it will be necessary for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get a muder 2 conviction.


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


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

re BBM

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

2- spite? for the ones that got away

:waitasec:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 4,164 (members: 209, guests: 3,955)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
3,955
Total visitors
4,164
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,822
Messages
17,959,619
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top