17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #24

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Velouria said:
It's one thing to question her recall, but I think it's quite another to repeatedly insinuate that a 15 year-old is somehow at fault for not contacting SPD immediately, as though she could have saved Trayvon's life. That just isn't fair, IMO.
Click to expand...

No one could have saved TM except maybe the police if they would have gotten there 2 minutes sooner.But not trying to get any help by trying 911 might make it seem like she was not concerned about his safety.If what she has said is true TM knew he was being followed ,verbally confronted the person who was following him, and the phone goes dead she called back many times and he never answered.It does seem odd she did not tell anyone till TM 's dad called her.I do not think it is attacking her to feel this way.If this goes to trial IMO Jurors might have a problem with it, and a defense attorney will jump on it IMO.
 
OK can someone provide a link to MSM not the blogs I am finding, that says she waited three weeks to speak to police?

snip:

But Mr. Crump and Natalie Jackson, the lawyers for Trayvon’s family, said that the law does not preclude police from properly investigating a homicide: collecting evidence, thoroughly interviewing the suspect and aggressively questioning witnesses — much of which, they maintained, did not occur in the death of Trayvon Martin.

For example, the lawyers said that, as of late last week, no investigator had interviewed Trayvon’s girlfriend.

The date of this publication is April 2, 2012.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4692204.../t/sanford-eye-racial-firestorm/#.T4kCbtl0nWB

Link up folks to an article in MSM that states she didn't go to the police for 3 weeks.
 
gitana1 said:
What she heard Trayvon say would be unlikely to be considered a dying declaration because he was not dying when he spoke. But that's okay, it still comes in.
Click to expand...

Since the police did not get to her till later on.
since Mr. Martin got to her first. I have a list of suspisions.
But how can we know.
 
Karmady said:
Thanks for this, too. Which subsection of the exceptions do you think it gets in under? I think they are a little different than the federal rules.
Click to expand...

Ooops, you are right! let me check.

ETA: Nope, it is the state statue.
 
songline said:
Isabelle I am not trying to be unkind but MIAMI is no longer the Riviera.
It is a drug center and the kids are really aware of what i going on.
she is not under a rock, or in Hicksville.
She know a man is following me and the phone goes off ----- is not good...
but she also knows a man is following me, he is gone now
talk to you later is -------nothing to worry about.

ARE YOU ASKING why do I think someone got to her before the police???
Because Trayvon did not have a voice, she does.
Click to expand...

There are different parts to Miami just like there are different parts to NYC? I'm more scared of Hicksville than I am of Miami. Just sayin'.

ETA: And unless you have lived in Miami or anywhere near Miami... how would you know what the children there are aware of? Just asking?
 
Velouria said:
It's one thing to question her recall, but I think it's quite another to repeatedly insinuate that a 15 year-old is somehow at fault for not contacting SPD immediately, as though she could have saved Trayvon's life. That just isn't fair, IMO.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anyone blaming her for his death. And I think that maybe the emotions are running so high that people are jumping to unfair conclusions about what others are referring to or implying, imo.

I think it may come into question in court, because the way the testimony is right now, it IMPLIES that the last thing she heard was her boyfriend being jumped by a racist killer. So it is going to be asked, inevitably,what did you do in response ?

It is kind of a catch 22, because the prosecution is going to want it to be crystal clear that she heard the last moment of her boyfriends life. They need that to be communicated to the jury to dispel the notion of self defense on GZ's part. But if they make that crystal clear, that she could tell he was jumped by the stranger, then that nagging question will arise. Who did you call? Did you tell anyone?

I don't think it is out of line to look at what the defense is going to do when the trial happens.
 
grandmaj said:
OK can someone provide a link to MSM not the blogs I am finding, that says she waited three weeks to speak to police?

snip:

But Mr. Crump and Natalie Jackson, the lawyers for Trayvon’s family, said that the law does not preclude police from properly investigating a homicide: collecting evidence, thoroughly interviewing the suspect and aggressively questioning witnesses — much of which, they maintained, did not occur in the death of Trayvon Martin.

For example, the lawyers said that, as of late last week, no investigator had interviewed Trayvon’s girlfriend.

The date of this publication is April 2, 2012.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4692204.../t/sanford-eye-racial-firestorm/#.T4kCbtl0nWB

Link up folks to an article in MSM that states she didn't go to the police for 3 weeks.
Click to expand...

LOOKING for more. :)
<snip blogs>
there is more.. I am tired....:)
 
songline said:
Isabelle I am not trying to be unkind but MIAMI is no longer the Riviera.
It is a drug center and the kids are really aware of what i going on.
she is not under a rock, or in Hicksville.
She know a man is following me and the phone goes off ----- is not good...
but she also knows a man is following me, he is gone now
talk to you later is -------nothing to worry about.

ARE YOU ASKING why do I think someone got to her before the police???
Because Trayvon did not have a voice, she does.
Click to expand...

It depends on what part of Miami you are talking about, there are certain parts of Miami that are very affluent and safe just like any big city.

http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crimereportlistranking.cfm?state=FL
 
gitana1 said:
It is an affirmative defense. It's part of the affirmative defense called "self defense". It is an expansion of that affirmative defense.

And yes, from what I understand, if Zimmerman does not prevail at the prelim with that defense, he can still assert it during trial and allow the jury to decide.

Usually, it's hard to win at prelim. It's easier to win with such a defense at trial.

Here's a link: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html
Click to expand...


haha...that's the exact link I was reading, but wasn't sure if I could post it.

What has me going is this snippet

The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a &#8220;true immunity&#8221; and not merely an affirmative defense.

So does that change anything and, if so, does it change things only wrt to the prelim or at trial as well in terms of the burden.

In other words, is it a super-duper "affirmative defense" or different than that, and is the burden on the defendant to prove it at trial by a preponderence, or must the prosecutor disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Gah!
 
katydid23 said:
I didn't see anyone blaming her for his death. And I think that maybe the emotions are running so high that people are jumping to unfair conclusions about what others are referring to or implying, imo.

I think it may come into question in court, because the way the testimony is right now, the last thing she heard was her boyfriend being jumped by a racist killer. So it is going to be asked, inevitably,what did you do in response ?

It is kind of a catch 22, because the prosecution is going to want it to be crystal clear that she heard the last moment of her boyfriends life. They need that to be communicated to the jury to dispel the notion of self defense on GZ's part. But if they make that crystal clear, that she could tell he was jumped by the stranger, then that nagging question will arise. Who did you call? Did you tell anyone?

I don't think it is out of line to look at what the defense is going to do when the trial happens.
Click to expand...

I honestly think O'Mara is a decent man and he is not going to have all these really, bordering on accusations, over the top questions for her? A jury would hate him if he went after this young girl like that?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to see that her phone records match up... that's huge! There is also nothing wrong with wondering if she could remember clearly what was said on the phone that night. That is part of the trial and evidence.

Some of the other things that have been brought up?? IMO, would not win over a jury.
 
gitana1 said:
Ooops, you are right! let me check.

ETA: Nope, it is the state statue.
Click to expand...

So which exception do you think applies. They are rather limited. Impending death, maybe? But he would have had to believe that death was imminent at the time the statement was made?

Idk, I think there are exceptions that may apply, but I'm not sure the unavailable declarant is the most likely one, especially since the last exception is significantly different than the Feds, iirc.

I'm headed for bed in a few, but want to thank you again for your professional opinion. Merci!
 
RANCH said:
BBM
So Trayvons girlfriend heard him say "He's behind me again". I've never heard that quote before, and it's not in the link provided.
Click to expand...

It's here and I missed a word. It was "He's right behind me again." http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-20/trayvon-martin-teen-shot-florida/53669448/1

The call lasted four minutes, putting it at 7:16 when the phone goes dead. She reports the beginning of the confrontation. According to the 911 calls from neighbors, a shot is heard at 7:16:41 (I'll go check this again but it was posted here a couple threads ago with links). The police arrived at 7:17. The scuffle had to be awfully short and most of it was taken up with that terrified screaming.
 
LolaMoon08 said:
I honestly think O'Mara is a decent man and he is not going to have all these really, bordering on accusations, over the top questions for her? A jury would hate him if he went after this young girl like that?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to see that her phone records match up... that's huge! There is also nothing wrong with wondering if she could remember clearly what was said on the phone that night. That is part of the trial and evidence.

Some of the other things that have been brought up?? IMO, would not win over a jury.
Click to expand...

I agree that he is a decent man. But he is also defending a man from life in prison. And he is a smart enough trial attorney that he will be adept enough to ask her those types of questions, without seeming to attack her.

I think the jury will automatically wonder the same thing. You are talking to your boyfriend, he tells you how scared he is of this stalker, he is running and then hiding, then is surprised by him, and confronts him angrily, and
..... phone dies.....????? The JURY themselves will want to know what she did next.

And that is not attacking her or berating her. It is just a natural response to the riveting situation.

Now it will be perfect for the defense if she can show that she reached out to LE and she was ignored or denied. That will be a big plus.

And that is a natural question I asked. Did she call anyone right then or soon after? That is not an attack on her character, just a logical question that follows the circumstances.

The reason the defense may want to follow up is that they may want to measure just how serious the scare was on the phone call. Was she so worried that she took further measures or not? It is going to be brought up in some way during the trial, UNLESS the defense finds out that she did call LE, then they will drop it, imo.
 
Isabelle said:
Ever since I was robbed at gunpoint, I have been on guard when walking in public. If I know or sense someone is behind me, I will suddenly turn around and look straight at them. I have heard that this will lessen you chances of being a target for attack.
Click to expand...

I have done the same and yelled at him, "What?" And he backed off, much to my relief.
 
LinasK said:
Which means it's hearsay and not evidence, unless RZ is called to testify as Cindy Anthony was. Still doesn't mean I believe him!
Click to expand...

Why the O/P chose to use GZ's dad statement instead of the TM's girlfriend statement is obvious.

GZ = KC (thinks they can get away with whatever bad behavior that they have in the past as their families look the other way when they do so or they somehow wrangle their way out of trouble; invents imaginary scenarios when they have to face the music)

RZ = LA (supporting sibling of creep who will tell ridiculous lies to cover their depraved sibling (oh , no he wasn't following TM; TM sucker punched him; he was swallowing his blood from TM's punch and was near death (how ridiculous is that lie!!))

RZ Sr. = CA (will lie on stand to cover creepy offspring's hide at any cost; usually works behind the scene ("I was googling chlorophyll.. and blah blah")

I just hope that this jury is not as braindead as the last one.
 
JeannaT said:
What kind of trouble would a medical professional be in for leaking a confidential medical document? That would be it, for a lifetime, for whatever license they held under the HIPAA rules.
Click to expand...


Indeed correct.

However, GZ could have at any time authorized said medical professional to leak the document to the media to help his own case.

So why hasn't he? In his shoes I sure as double toothpicks would.
 
That 15 ye old girl is a victim too...if some think it is OK to "bash" her for not calling LE after that phone call and she was not even in the area.....that's not right....Then I would expect the same reaction towards the witness who actually saw the struggle and was running to his apt to call 911 when he heard the gunshot. He was right there and did nothing to break up that struggle.....Was he wrong too?
 
grandmaj said:
OK can someone provide a link to MSM not the blogs I am finding, that says she waited three weeks to speak to police?

snip:

But Mr. Crump and Natalie Jackson, the lawyers for Trayvon&#8217;s family, said that the law does not preclude police from properly investigating a homicide: collecting evidence, thoroughly interviewing the suspect and aggressively questioning witnesses &#8212; much of which, they maintained, did not occur in the death of Trayvon Martin.

For example, the lawyers said that, as of late last week, no investigator had interviewed Trayvon&#8217;s girlfriend.

The date of this publication is April 2, 2012.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4692204.../t/sanford-eye-racial-firestorm/#.T4kCbtl0nWB

Link up folks to an article in MSM that states she didn't go to the police for 3 weeks.
Click to expand...

Found it!!! Wait, is huffing ton post msm? If not then delete :(

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation_n_1409277.html

States that weeks after the shooting mr Martin noticed the timing of the call from the gf and contacted her. Article goes on to criticize Sanford LE for not looking at the cell records.
This actually makes what was heard more suspect. If the gf goes to the viewing finds out she was the last to speak to him and has a panic attack and is taken to the hospital I would think if she knew any important info she would
have let TM's family know then or soon after. But weeks later TM's dad contacts her and that is when she tells someone about what she heard. Moo
 
Some more thoughts on the phone call from the girlfriend. GZ's father says that he doesn't believe that there was any such call. Clearly he recognizes that it is very important to our understanding of what happened that night, even without her testimony. As I've said before, it just seems unlikely to me that he'd be chatting away with his girlfriend at the same time he is doubling back to attack a retreating Zimmerman. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/2...yvon-martin-beat-his-son-threatened-his-life/

Also, one of the reasons I believe the girlfriend and don't think she was coached to say something favorable to Trayvon is because of the exchange she reported: "Why are you following me?" and "Why are you here?" If she were going to be coached into saying something favorable to Trayvon and unfavorable to Zimmerman, wouldn't she have had Zimmerman using a racial epithet and threatening Trayvon?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 212 more.
Total: 4,310 (members: 213, guests: 4,097)

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
4,097
Total visitors
4,310
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,155
Messages
17,964,346
Members
228,705
Latest member
mhenderson
Back
Top