So all of those people will not necessarily testify?
What evidence does the prosecution have?
- Thread starter wishuwerehere
- Start date
- Status
So all of those people will not necessarily testify?
LambChop
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,160
- Reaction score
- 29
So what you are saying is that Wolfinger claims not to have talked to anyone regarding the GZ case? Then why is it he stepped aside if he had nothing to do with the decision and why did the Chief remove himself because of his "involvement"? And what was in GZ's statements that Gilbreath read that Serino missed? Gilbreath said inconsistencies in GZ's statements. And lastly what proof do we have that SPD did not make a decision based on an outside influence such as GZ telling LE his father was a retired judge. All we will hear is "at the time I was basing my decision on what evidence was available at the time." Most of that evidence came from GZ. jmo
I've read that both the defense and state want certain witness information redacted. What if they want and agree to redact chunks of the actual witness accounts in the state's evidence vs. just identifying info?
I'm guessing we'd see a full-on media challenge if that were to happen. I think this case could end up being the biggest testing ground yet of the FL Sunshine Law.
The defense wants names, adresses etc. redacted so the lynch mobs will not call up these witnesses, locate where they live and cause havoc for the witnesses.
True, imo
Dr.Fessel
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 25
I wonder why Taaffe and Oliver have never had any problem or any of the other people who have been on the news?
I can understand why the defense wants to do this. IMO, anyone who is related to GZ is a target for the mobs.
Remember what happened with that elderly couple's address that Spike Lee tweeted about?
I'm sure they don't want anymore of that.
Of course not. It does not even mean that it will be introduced as evidence at trial.
Dr.Fessel
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 25
I can understand why both the SA and the Defense would want to redact names until the trial so people don't try to get to them and change their testimony or something.
The elderly couple's trouble was because of a tweet about GZ and the wrong address. Zimmerman's real address has been out there from the start and even his wife has never received a threat. I think this danger is being all blown out of proportion by the defense.
I believe my words were that he didn't talk to anyone about it on the 26th or 27th, which is when Mr. Crump is stating that Mr. Serino wanted to make an arrest. I'd say he stepped aside because of the fabrications created by 3rd parties on him. If he's not in the story anymore no one can make fabrications about what he is or is not doing - err, of course they could, but it would be as senseless as making the fabricated stories are currently. As far as I understand, the SPD did their job - they took Mr. Zimmerman to the investigators at the police station. I'm not sure what Mr. Zimmerman stating anything about a judge would play on the police officers, they're not the ones who did the investigation, though I'm sure if he made such a statement it will be in a police report. What proof do we have that he did make such a statement? The same proof that we have that he didn't - none, other than some off the wall, so far unfounded, claims about it. To be honest I'm kind of surprised the MSM didn't take my joke about Mr. Zimmerman laying on the ground with a sniper rifle and run with it.
LolaMoon08
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 7,138
- Reaction score
- 243
I'm still trying to find these "mobs" you speak of?
LambChop
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,160
- Reaction score
- 29
Wouldn't posting these pictures in a public forum seem more like stirring things up than they would for informational value? I think their behavior in offering a reward for GZ is offensive enough without giving them free publicity. jmo
beach
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 18,370
- Reaction score
- 4,471
The media, for one. I think it is fantastic that identifying info is being redacted. It will make it harder for tabloids to offer $$$$$$ to witnesses to sell their story. No matter how truthful the testimony they may have to give, it causes HUGE credibility problems. Hard for someone who going through financially tough times to turn down the big $$$ offered. That is good for BOTH SIDES - the prosecution AND the defense. Remember all the witnesses in that other FL case? TL being relentlessly followed into a Chili's restaurant? I will never forget that video...it was very disturbing.
It is the best of all worlds, imo. The Florida Sunshine laws prevail - we still get to see evidence, however the witnesses are somewhat protected. I'm still on the fence about how well this will work. Time will tell. That said, no person who has witnessed an incident should ever have to be subjected to the same things we saw happen to witnesses during the Anthony fiasco.
I hope Florida can come up with some way to amend the Sunshine Laws to protect witnesses from being hounded for months/years.
The media did not seem to have a problem giving the NBPP plenty of airtime...hell I think that either MSNBC or CNN gave a prime-time interview to their leader. (correct me if I am wrong please).
beach
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 18,370
- Reaction score
- 4,471
Agreed. Point well made.
I'm going to remove the pics for the reasons you stated. That is exactly why we opened Sound Off downstairs. Lola, you can check out the Sound Off threads for more discussion of these "mobs". There is plenty of it down there. lol
No offense to anyone, especially tpgks. I totally get the point you were making. However, I refuse to give those groups any free publicity - even bad publicity.
Thanks for understanding.
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 17,359
- Reaction score
- 35,380
From looking at the witness list just released, there's a few witness's who don't have statements listed, W4,W7,W10 and W15 who only shows a 911 call. The latest statement is from W8 on 4/2. Is this it? Or is this just a preliminary statement list? I would hope that the state would want statements from all witness's listed. This document is dated May 14th. That's nearly a month and a half after the last statement's date. Something is missing here. JMO.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93646122/...t-filed-by-the-state-in-George-Zimmerman-case
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93646122/...t-filed-by-the-state-in-George-Zimmerman-case
This is it for the initial filing. Anything else that the prosecution would have as evidence would be somebody/something that came forward after May 14th.
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 17,359
- Reaction score
- 35,380
So does that mean the state never bothered to get these witness's statements before May 14th? Or maybe these witness's are not cooperating with investigators? I'm not sure myself.
I am not a legal expert by any means, but I know that if they had statements from those witnesses, they would have to be turned over. I cannot guess on whether or not the state did not get the statements, or if witnesses were not cooperating. All I know is that from the 8 page filing, there appears to be no statements. MOO
WS is stalling out again. So, I am copying and pasting two previous posts and a reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHater View Post
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...
cityslick Reply to HiHater
"All they had to do was get them from the cell carrier for whatever dates they wanted."
I'm not sure if this has been addressed but records from GZ's landline, if he has one, and any other cell phone records of residents of his home (like his wife's) would seem important and possibly relevant. I hope SA subpoenaed those phone records as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHater View Post
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...
cityslick Reply to HiHater
"All they had to do was get them from the cell carrier for whatever dates they wanted."
I'm not sure if this has been addressed but records from GZ's landline, if he has one, and any other cell phone records of residents of his home (like his wife's) would seem important and possibly relevant. I hope SA subpoenaed those phone records as well.
octobermoon
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,276
- Reaction score
- 15
I can't get on websleuths half the time? GRRRRR too hard to keep up.
- Status