17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #35

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought John said he was outside and saw the altercation (the man in red on the bottom) and he went back inside through the patio door and locked it. He then ran upstairs to call 911 while he looked out the window. I will go listen once again........

You are correct he was outside and then went in. He saw it from both.
 
I must have missed the part where John was inside. I was under the impression that he was outside and THEN went in and upstairs. I also missed the part where a police officer told John that the guy on the bottom was the guy walking around. I'm not gonna ask for links b/c I know that's a PITA, but if you have some handy.... :)
It is all just speculation on my part and that is why I used words like " I think" and IMO
 
I agree Nova. But,I just think perhaps they still had to consider if it made sense to avoid the entire 15k cost of the bondsman overall.
I think being thrust into a situation of this magnitude and not being versed on what it takes to succesfully maneuver through what could potentially be a long, expensive road they needed to weigh things out.
I mean pehaps in their minds there is not going to be a trial so why spend 15k if they didn't have to?
I am not addressing the propriety or impropriety of the funds or the disclosure of them- only addressing the practical use of them.

J, I hadn't gotten to that post of yours when I posted my own thoughts on keeping money free for defense costs.

Until this discussion, I didn't realize the 10% paid to a bondsman was non-refundable. I'm sure that realization would give me pause if it were my son who needed bail. Not that I don't love him, but how many people have $15K to burn? Your argument that they may have taken a few days trying to get around that expense makes sense to me.

I was talking about the entirety of the $150K and why GZ didn't just write a check from his paypal money. As I said, I think MO'M convinced him and the family that whatever funds were in the paypal account would be needed for other things. (How MO'M did so without ever asking how much money was in the account must be one of those magical lawyer's tricks!)
 
I read that just like the Orlando Sentinel article he mentioned. The test gave them no insight into who's voice it was.

But unless the FBI test reported something completely different then the Sentinel's test we know the voice is not Zimmerman's.

By the time a trial rolls around I think you will have a defense expert that says it is zimmerman or it is inconclusive or the whole science is questionable.
 
Yep, sort of like the lady who was on the phone with 911 so long and how they told her something to the effect if it makes you feel better the one screaming is the one who is alive. Baloney with a capitol B. Talk about leading a witness.


~jmo~

Exactly, it is that kind of "reinforcing the facts" with unknowns that keep a witness from remembering later some other specific facts of the case and reporting it. LE did not know for a fact it was Zimmerman on the bottom.
 
I think your right on the money. As I see it, neither of them were committing a crime until one lays a hand on the other. If that was GZ, then I think you have a case for manslaughter, possibly murder, but if it was TM that started the physical exchange, then GS acted in self defense, and potentially protected under SYG.

In the absence of any evidence of who touched the other, you have to accquit.

I believe if the evidence does not agree with the story GZ has told they would not acquit. Evidence does not support GZ stories of how it happened. Take your pick, the evidence does not match any of them. jmo
 
By the time a trial rolls around I think you will have a defense expert that says it is zimmerman or it is inconclusive or the whole science is questionable.

Or the ultimate question......"Are you a chemist?" lol
 
It is all just speculation on my part and that is why I used words like " I think" and IMO

Okay, but in fairness to me, neither the part of your post about him being inside, nor the part about what an officer told him were part of your "I think" comment.

Your post:

I have a problem believing John standing inside his lighted home looking out into the dark seeing the color of a sweater which has black arms which was probably unzipped and saying it was red.

I think it is far more likely he saw the color of the jacket after he got up and was walking around and the police officer told him the guy who was walking around was the one on bottom.

IMO
 
I read that just like the Orlando Sentinel article he mentioned. The test gave them no insight into who's voice it was.

But unless the FBI test reported something completely different then the Sentinel's test we know the voice is not Zimmerman's.

We know nothing of the sort.
 
Could the "lacerations" have occurred when Trayvon was trying to get away from GZ? We don't know; we also don't KNOW the whole statement GZ gave LE. IMO, this could mean that GZ may have done something physical to provoke Trayvon, such as try to detain him and Trayvon tried to defend himself. Trayvon had NO CLUE who GZ was.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/george-zimmerman-bail-hearing_n_1440175.html
I don't think I've read anything stating Martin was being held by GZ and trying to get away, but we can absolutely speculate. In this speculation, did Trayvon hit GZ with something to the back of his head while trying to get away, which caused the lacerations? Seems that would be an awkward dynamic, JMO.
"Gilbreath testified that Zimmerman repeatedly contradicted himself while being interviewed by police and provided statements inconsistent with physical evidence and witness recollections."
This (cited Huffpo article), is the reporter's interpretation of Gilbreath's testimony. The actual transcript (CNN), does not say this. In fact, this is what the transcript says:

"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"? "
<snip>
IMO, there is nothing and no one that contradicts his story during the time before and after the altercation (see below)

"O'MARA: That statement that he had given you -- sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event?

GILBREATH: Which two?

O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one.

GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.

O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?

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

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

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

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no. "
Red emphasis mine.

Welcome to the forum, by the way!!
 
Okay, but in fairness to me, neither the part of your post about him being inside, nor the part about what an officer told him were part of your "I think" comment.

Your post:

I have a problem believing John standing inside his lighted home looking out into the dark seeing the color of a sweater which has black arms which was probably unzipped and saying it was red.

I think it is far more likely he saw the color of the jacket after he got up and was walking around and the police officer told him the guy who was walking around was the one on bottom.

IMO

The only black on the arms of GZ's jacket is off the shoulder. The rest of the arm on the jacket is red, not black. On the picture of his bloody head it appears his jacket arms are all black if he is, indeed, holding that phone to his ear??? But the night of the shooting the jacket he had on the arms were mostly red. Black across the shoulder area to the cap of the shoulder area the rest of the arm is red. jmo

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS290836921920120330
 
Anyone have more about John's statement then what he says in this video? I really wonder who this guy is standing around with his hands in his pocket and texting. No notebook or anything.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuPmu8UUbpQ"]Witness say Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman (Update)--"Arrest Video Proves Wrong" - YouTube[/ame]
 
I read that just like the Orlando Sentinel article he mentioned. The test gave them no insight into who's voice it was.

But unless the FBI test reported something completely different then the Sentinel's test we know the voice is not Zimmerman's.

If the tests showed the voice was not GZ then why did the investigator say that the analysis gave him no insight into who's voice it is. Its gotta be either TM or GZ and if he concluded it was not GZ then the only possible other choice is TM.

I believe that the FBI either opined that it was inconclusive, or they opined that it was GZ and Gilbreath discarded both results as they were contradicting.
 
If John got such a good look you would think he would have said the black guy was on top. Never says a word about what the guy on top was wearing. IMO
 
I'll bet a time out that is Trayvon Martin screaming, crying out for assistance.

JMO IMO MOO
 
We know nothing of the sort.

But we do know as of right now that the tests that were done by two experts both claim it was not GZ's voice and cannot identify the voice because they had no sample of TM's voice. If they do more testing by other experts and they all conclude that it is not GZ's voice that is exactly what the jury will hear. That it was not GZ that was screaming in horror for his life. jmo
 
If the tests showed the voice was not GZ then why did the investigator say that the analysis gave him no insight into who's voice it is. Its gotta be either TM or GZ and if he concluded it was not GS then the only possible other choice is TM.

I believe that the FBI either opined that it was inconclusive, or they opined that it was GZ and Gilbreath discarded both results as they were contradicting.
O'Mara never asked him if it was Zimmerman's just if he had any insight into it.

insight [&#712;&#618;n&#716;sa&#618;t]
n
1. the ability to perceive clearly or deeply; penetration


I think his answer was right on even if it ruled out Zimmerman and you notice O'Mara did not ask if it was Zimmerman's voice because he knew what the Sentinel already said. IMO
 
Anyone have more about John's statement then what he says in this video? I really wonder who this guy is standing around with his hands in his pocket and texting. No notebook or anything.

Witness say Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman (Update)--"Arrest Video Proves Wrong" - YouTube

OK, doc, not going to say how I know, so will just say jmo, that is the "infamous" narcotics officer. He was off duty and called in to the investigation so he is not in uniform.
 
If the tests showed the voice was not GZ then why did the investigator say that the analysis gave him no insight into who's voice it is. Its gotta be either TM or GZ and if he concluded it was not GS then the only possible other choice is TM.

I believe that the FBI either opined that it was inconclusive, or they opined that it was GZ and Gilbreath discarded both results as they were contradicting.

Standards call for comparing speech containing words to speech containing words, not comparing screaming (with very few words) to speech. This expert for the newspaper was using some sort of new technology and then claimed he ruled Zimmerman out, without ruling Trayvon in. For all I know Trayvon's voice wouldn't match either. First one has to demonstrate their technology is reliable and accurate for it to even be allowed into court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
886
Total visitors
997

Forum statistics

Threads
589,800
Messages
17,926,148
Members
227,972
Latest member
pinkfloyd44!
Back
Top