What evidence does the prosecution have?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
wishuwerehere said:
I am not privy to her entire statement. I guess you won't be changing your mind, yet.

jmo
Click to expand...

True I do not have her entire statement yet, I certainly would think that Crump would have told us if she heard anything more sinister than what he is telling the press. IMO Crump is not known for holding back.

And your right, I'm not ready to change my mind yet. I may change my mind once everything comes out. I'm prepared for that.
 
Phoenixfla said:
Here is what Crump said:



One thing I can not figure out is how the GF knew that TM was pushed? Maybe what she heard was TM pushing GZ?

She goes on to say that TMs "voice changes", well she never relays to us what TM was saying when his voice changed. Musta said something to come to the conclusion that his voice changed.

ETA: And how does she know someone hit the phone? Maybe it fell out of his pocket, maybe the battery went dead, maybe the call was dropped for bad reception, maybe it got wet in the rain and shorted out. The phone being hit is only one possibility.
Click to expand...

If the phone shorted out due to water it wouldn't have come back on, and given that the girlfriend didn't attempt to contact Mr. Martin's parents, her story would not be known today. It was Mr. Martin's father who found her number as the last incoming call and called her back.
 
AJ Noiter said:
I still believe she will not be called to testify. Her use was for probable cause only, otherwise why didn't they include more details or even a transcript of what she heard in the affidavit? All they stated was that "some friend was on the phone with him and he said he was scared about 4 minutes before the shooting." If she does testify, I don't see her testifying to much more than just that, "Travyon was scared about 4 minutes before he was shot." I could be wrong on both, and if I am, being that she's an ear witness she can't attest to the events that happen, only what she heard. What did she hear? Well, skipping over most of the conversation, she heard "Why are you following me?", "What are you doing here?", "Why are you fo-'hiccup'-llowing me" ... that "hiccup" is where she states that she thinks Mr. Martin was pushed. She can't testify to exactly what that was because she doesn't know, she just thinks that something happened.

However, as I stated in my first sentence, I don't believe she'll be called to testify because Investigator Gilbreath did state, as a matter of sworn fact, that he had no evidence to contradict Mr. Zimmerman's story regarding this. Why would he commit perjury?

* Time estimations are my own, with nothing reliable to back up the "4 minute" estimation that I gave. Example only, basically.
Click to expand...


Really? At that time the State had not completed putting its case together for a trial. The only thing which was put forward was enough evidence to support the charges. That was not a trial, but a bond hearing. You're asking Gilbreath to state the colors of an unpainted portrait.

jmo
 
vlpate said:
I find his story credible because it matches eye and ear witness statements, GZ's statements that we are aware of, and police reports. The prosecution has offered nothing in the way of evidence that conflicts with any of the above. Once the evidence comes out, I may find his story total bull, but as it stands, no way is this murder 2. IMO

What I don't find credible, because there is no proof, are the assumptions bolded above.
Click to expand...

There's a dead innocent 17 year old boy, that's the proof.

jmo
 
wishuwerehere said:
Really? At that time the State had not completed putting its case together for a trial. The only thing which was put forward was enough evidence to support the charges. That was not a trial, but a bond hearing. You're asking Gilbreath to state the colors of an unpainted portrait.

jmo
Click to expand...

He was under oath. Doesn't matter what kind of hearing it was. If the State objected to the question as beyond the scope of the hearing, or whatever, you might have a point. But he answered the question and, presumably, he answered it truthfully. So, at least as of the bond hearing, there was no evidence of who initiated the contact. It's just that simple, imo.
 
Karmady said:
He was under oath. Doesn't matter what kind of hearing it was. If the State objected to the question as beyond the scope of the hearing, or whatever, you might have a point. But he answered the question and, presumably, he answered it truthfully. So, at least as of the bond hearing, there was no evidence of who initiated the contact. It's just that simple, imo.
Click to expand...

They should have objected.

However, Gilbreath can only answer about what he is aware at the time of the question. It was and is an ongoing investigation.

jmo
 
wishuwerehere said:
Really? At that time the State had not completed putting its case together for a trial. The only thing which was put forward was enough evidence to support the charges. That was not a trial, but a bond hearing. You're asking Gilbreath to state the colors of an unpainted portrait.

jmo
Click to expand...

The only grounds in which they could stand on, saying that they weren't aware of this information at the bond hearing, is blown out of the water by the affidavit. How did they know that she heard he was scared, but not the rest of her statement?
 
wishuwerehere said:
They should have objected.

However, Gilbreath can only answer about what he is aware at the time of the question. It was and is an ongoing investigation.

jmo
Click to expand...

Objected on what grounds? I'm genuinely curious here.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
Happens all the time, feet go out from under you and you hit your head.
Click to expand...

What I mean is, I don't think it's common for an adult to slip and fall flat on their back and cut the top of their head, twice, unless maybe he caught the side of the cement walk and bounced. The natural instinct for an adult is to brace themselves. It seems GZ would have had other injuries/scratches/bruises, if he had fallen backwards on the cement and tried to stop the fall at all. Besides, the g/f never said he was being chased and the strange guy just busted his a$$.

JMO
 
Karmady said:
He was under oath. Doesn't matter what kind of hearing it was. If the State objected to the question as beyond the scope of the hearing, or whatever, you might have a point. But he answered the question and, presumably, he answered it truthfully. So, at least as of the bond hearing, there was no evidence of who initiated the contact. It's just that simple, imo.
Click to expand...

That is right. Most trials you do not have direct evidence so you rely on other evidence that tells the story. If everything was on the up and up there would be no reason for Zimmerman to lie about anything but it was suggested in the bond hearing he did. If he lied about how it all went down and they have evidence to it then they can deduce he lied about how the fight started. IMO
 
vlpate said:
What I mean is, I don't think it's common for an adult to slip and fall flat on their back and cut the top of their head, twice, unless maybe he caught the side of the cement walk and bounced. The natural instinct for an adult is to brace themselves. It seems GZ would have had other injuries/scratches/bruises, if he had fallen backwards on the cement and tried to stop the fall at all. Besides, the g/f never said he was being chased and the strange guy just busted his a$$.

JMO
Click to expand...

I would like to know what that horseshoe shaped wound is.
 
AJ Noiter said:
The only grounds in which they could stand on, saying that they weren't aware of this information at the bond hearing, is blown out of the water by the affidavit. How did they know that she heard he was scared, but not the rest of her statement?
Click to expand...

We haven't seen the affidavit. So I'm going to disagree with you.

Gilbreath, IMO was blindsided at that bond hearing. I believe he answered the questions truthfully, but I also think he was walking a tightrope.

jmo
 
wishuwerehere said:
They should have objected.

However, Gilbreath can only answer about what he is aware at the time of the question. It was and is an ongoing investigation.

jmo
Click to expand...

Right. Like I said, as of the bond hearing, there was no evidence of who started the confrontation. If there is other evidence that was yet to be discovered, then that's a different story. However, considering how much time had passed and how many of the witnesses were already known, tapes available etc. I think the likelihood of a surprise eyewitness who observed the beginning of the physical altercation is unlikely to the point of being 99.9% certain that there is no such person. And even if there were, their testimony would be highly suspect if they were completely unknown and had not given a statement to LE or the SP before the bond hearing. Imo, there are no witnesses who were unknown to the prosecution at the time of the bond hearing.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
That is right. Most trials you do not have direct evidence so you rely on other evidence that tells the story. If everything was on the up and up there would be no reason for Zimmerman to lie about anything but it was suggested in the bond hearing he did. If he lied about how it all went down and they have evidence to it then they can deduce he lied about how the fight started. IMO
Click to expand...

Even if he lied and lost ALL of his credibility, that doesn't amount to proof of the opposite conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, though. jmo

ETA: I should have said "beleive" he lied b/c short of George saying that he lied, conclusions about his credibility are just subjective impressions. jmo
 
wishuwerehere said:
Not relevant to the matter at hand, the bond hearing.

jmo
Click to expand...

Being that the probable cause affidavit itself was being questioned, I believe it would be in the scope of questioning to ask "Do you have ANYTHING that conflicts with my client's story?"
 
AJ Noiter said:
I still believe she will not be called to testify. Her use was for probable cause only, otherwise why didn't they include more details or even a transcript of what she heard in the affidavit? All they stated was that "some friend was on the phone with him and he said he was scared about 4 minutes before the shooting." If she does testify, I don't see her testifying to much more than just that, "Travyon was scared about 4 minutes before he was shot." I could be wrong on both, and if I am, being that she's an ear witness she can't attest to the events that happen, only what she heard. What did she hear? Well, skipping over most of the conversation, she heard "Why are you following me?", "What are you doing here?", "Why are you fo-'hiccup'-llowing me" ... that "hiccup" is where she states that she thinks Mr. Martin was pushed. She can't testify to exactly what that was because she doesn't know, she just thinks that something happened.

However, as I stated in my first sentence, I don't believe she'll be called to testify because Investigator Gilbreath did state, as a matter of sworn fact, that he had no evidence to contradict Mr. Zimmerman's story regarding this. Why would he commit perjury?


* Time estimations are my own, with nothing reliable to back up the "4 minute" estimation that I gave. Example only, basically.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhh.....I think we need a little linky dink for this one because I don't think that is even close to what Mr. Gilbreath said at all. I believe both he and the SA said there were inconsistencies in GZ's statements. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 211 more.
Total: 4,007 (members: 212, guests: 3,795)

Online statistics

Members online
212
Guests online
3,795
Total visitors
4,007
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,254
Messages
17,966,245
Members
228,734
Latest member
TexasCuriousMynd
Back
Top