What evidence does the prosecution have?

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by vlpate

I don't think the prosecution will be able to make the case that GZ loaded his gun specifically to go find an a$$hole to kill that night. It has been said that he carried his gun almost all the time - which would make sense, otherwise, what is the point?

If I am following someone because I think they look familiar, and they turn around and say, "what the eff is your problem", and then punch me in the face and crawl on top of me, I am going to shoot, they don't even have to bang my head against the ground, I'll ask questions later. In Florida, I'm pretty sure I could successfully claim the SYG defense.

The prosecution surely does not have a case so weak that they are hanging their hat on the, at best, sketchy premise that GZ was following TM, and therefore, is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

JMO

It's obvious we're looking at this case from two different angles.

If I may assume, it seems you're looking at it as Zimmerman's story is credible.

I do not see Zimmerman's story as credible. I do believe the prosecution has a tougher job here than the defense, I'll give you that.

One of the reasons this case has grabbed me so much is because I can put myself in Trayvon's shoes and it scares the heliose out of me. Some overzealous nut can look at you, think you're suspicious, call the cops, and in the meantime follow and pursue you, confront you, and if you stand up for yourself verbally and/or run, he can hunt you down and shoot you and claim self defense. If Trayvon does not get justice here, I hope at least the SYG law will change so Trayvon's death will not be in vain.

jmo

[Dr.Fessel]

Originally Posted by vlpate

The investigator was very ambiguous about this witness during the bond hearing, is her statement online somewhere? Is this the witness that was on CNN in shadows?


He fell backward, hitting his head, while running forward?


BEM: I'm assuming you mean by holding a gun on him?

Happens all the time, feet go out from under you and you hit your head.

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by Phoenixfla

What part of her statement shows that he was trying to detain TM? I may change my mind if there is good evidence that GM tried to detain TM.

I am not privy to her entire statement. I guess you won't be changing your mind, yet.

jmo

[Phoenixfla]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

Whatever it is, I believe it is a piece of the pie which is holding the prosecution's case together. IMO the girlfriend's testimony will not only entail the intial contact between the two, but the leading up to that event as well. I know many on this thread have said it's is only about "the fight." I totally disagree. The leading up to the initial contact will be key. It shows intent on Zimmerman's part, i.e, he's going to be the cop and detain his subject. His state of mind, i.e. he can't control himself to wait for the cops. What else can't Zimmerman control himself about?

jmo

Here is what Crump said:

The lawyer, who took an affidavit from the girl, quotes the girl on the cellphone as saying that Trayvon was walking home from the store and had temporarily taken refuge from the rain. He then began walking again, when he tells her, according to Crump, "I think this dude is following me."

"She tells him, 'baby, be careful, just run home,' " Crump said.

According to the girl, Trayvon says, "I think I lost him" then moments later says, "He is right behind me again. I'm not going to run, I'm going to walk fast."

Crump said "she hears another voice, 'What are you doing around here?' Trayvon says, 'Why are you following me?' " At that point, according to the girl, Travyon is pushed and his voice changes.

"She hears the altercation, suddenly, someone just hit the phone, because that's the last she hears," Crump said. She did not hear the shooting.

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.

[beach]

OMG... doc dump day cannot come soon enough. :sigh:

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

Whatever it is, I believe it is a piece of the pie which is holding the prosecution's case together. IMO the girlfriend's testimony will not only entail the intial contact between the two, but the leading up to that event as well. I know many on this thread have said it's is only about "the fight." I totally disagree. The leading up to the initial contact will be key. It shows intent on Zimmerman's part, i.e, he's going to be the cop and detain his subject. His state of mind, i.e. he can't control himself to wait for the cops. What else can't Zimmerman control himself about?

jmo

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.

[vlpate]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

It's obvious we're looking at this case from two different angles.

If I may assume, it seems you're looking at it as Zimmerman's story is credible.

I do not see Zimmerman's story as credible. I do believe the prosecution has a tougher job here than the defense, I'll give you that.

One of the reasons this case has grabbed me so much is because I can put myself in Trayvon's shoes and it scares the heliose out of me. Some overzealous nut can look at you, think you're suspicious, call the cops, and in the meantime follow and pursue you, confront you, and if you stand up for yourself verbally and/or run, he can hunt you down and shoot you and claim self defense. If Trayvon does not get justice here, I hope at lease the SYG law will change so Trayvon's death will not be in vain.

jmo

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.

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by Phoenixfla

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.

If Trayvon is the fearful one, I don't see it as reasonable as he's the one doing the pushing. If Zimmerman pushed Trayvon first I can see Trayvon trying to run and Zimmerman catching him, and then the wrestling/fighting ensues ending with Trayvon being shot dead.

As far as the "voice changes," maybe it has something do with fear.

jmo

[Lovelymountains]

Originally Posted by zenreaper

Those who are in support of finding GZ guilty REFUSE to accept that it was not the WALKING that got TM shot, it was the ATTACKING that got him shot. GZ was not standing his ground or defending himself from a WALKER, he was defending himself from an ATTACKER.

So he says. I don't believe him.

[Sun48shine]

Originally Posted by Dr.Fessel

Happens all the time, feet go out from under you and you hit your head.

It was raining that night. He could have slipped on something and fell backwards on his head. Just throwing this out there.

[Phoenixfla]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

I am not privy to her entire statement. I guess you won't be changing your mind, yet.

jmo

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.

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by Phoenixfla

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.

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.

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by AJ Noiter

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.

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

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by vlpate

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.

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

jmo

[Karmady]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

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

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.

[Dr.Fessel]

Originally Posted by Sun48shine

It was raining that night. He could have slipped on something and fell backwards on his head. Just throwing this out there.

Oh I agree.

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by Karmady

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.

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

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

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

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?

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

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

Objected on what grounds? I'm genuinely curious here.

[vlpate]

Originally Posted by Dr.Fessel

Happens all the time, feet go out from under you and you hit your head.

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

[Dr.Fessel]

Originally Posted by Karmady

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.

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

[Dr.Fessel]

Originally Posted by vlpate

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

I would like to know what that horseshoe shaped wound is.

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by AJ Noiter

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?

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

[Karmady]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

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

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.

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

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

We have seen the affidavit. Even Mr. Alan Dershowitz has commented on the official affidavit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...252146286.html

Or if you want the actual, official pdf.