Rules of Evidence. The prosecution must turn over all evidence, even that which may be exculpatory to Zimmerman, to the defense.
So all of those people will not necessarily testify?
Rules of Evidence. The prosecution must turn over all evidence, even that which may be exculpatory to Zimmerman, to the defense.
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:
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.
So all of those people will not necessarily testify?
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.
I wonder why Taaffe and Oliver have never had any problem or any of the other people who have been on the news?
So all of those people will not necessarily testify?
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.
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 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.
I'm still trying to find these "mobs" you speak of?
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
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
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
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.
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.