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

[cityslick]

So it's basically inconclusive as far as my own ears are concerned. I can't tell whether MOM said it or not because I can't make out everything I hear on that tape but I can tell he was trying to make the investigator say it.

I still think Crump would of mentioned it or anyone would had mentioned it, somewhere if he did indeed mention her name in open court.

I can't hear it either but then again I never did.

 

[m00c0w]

RIF....I said, "...TRYING to get someone else to say it".

"I guess I don't see much difference in saying something yourself, or trying to get someone else to say it"

To me, there's a big difference between an attempt at something and actually doing something.

 

[Donjeta]

He kept asking for the name from the investigator. He never said he let a name "slip out". He clearly asked the investigator for the name of the witness, the investigator said he had access to it, the prosecution said they objected to the name of the witness being disclosed, and O'Mara apologized and said what amounts to, "I asked and realized after I asked that it was wrong."

http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

All around 1:16:00.

He also says "I apologize for the slip" which might be construed as apology for letting the name slip.

I suppose the line of questioning could have been the slip but I see how his words contribute to the notion that he slipped and disclosed the name.

 

[Desdemona]

Thanks to Desdemona's link they provided, I replayed the video portion several times. Although I can't understand exactly what Mr. O'Mara is saying at the exact second. By the Pros Attorney immediately rising and saying, "I object to the identity of this witness being revealed and ask that it be stricken from the record." and then followed by Mr. Omara's immediate "I apologize...."

I admit, I was wrong, the defense attorney did say the witnesses' name and the media did NOT 'edit' it out of the video. Actually surprised, myself, because I'm sure someone in the public with the proper equipment could make it audible.

Mystery solved, IMHO. The defense attorney did accidentally say the person's name, apologized for it and most likely removed from court transcripts, but the media left it in for all to see, hear (if you can!)

Thanks Desdemona! Gonna go find some hot sauce for that crow and take care of some pressing business, offline!

:seeya:
fran

You DO hear the name??

:crazy:
Back to the video vault for me?

Oh nooooo!!

 

[Donjeta]

"I guess I don't see much difference in saying something yourself, or trying to get someone else to say it"

To me, there's a big difference between an attempt at something and actually doing something.

Yeah, you weren't successful in the attempt which is too bad but as far as the intention goes, same difference imo.

 

[Phoenixfla]

I'm a new member and so happy to be here.

Has anyone considered that GZ might suffer from (Short Man Syndrome?) I'm a 5'9" woman and have dealt with it most of my adult life. He seems to fit the pattern, IMO.
If I've done this wrong, I apologize. I'll get the hang of it.

I believe we have discussed it, but would like to hear your take on it. How would that have an effect on incident?

I think the flip side of that coin is that IF TM was the agressor, it may have been because he was significantly taller than GZ and felt GZ would be no match for him.

WELCOME TO WS!!!

 

[cityslick]

Yeah, you weren't successful in the attempt which is too bad but as far as the intention goes, same difference imo.

I think the point of this discussion is MOM disclosing the girls name was being taken as fact in now it's more of an opinion whether he said it, wanted the detective to say it, etc.

 

[csziggy]

OK so if he didn't say it I'm very sorry for having unfairly blamed him for doing so.

However, I don't like this line of questioning either. Why was he trying to get the investigator to reveal a minor's name in a televised hearing?

Doesn't he know it yet?

If he wasn't trying to trick the investigator into revealing the name to the public or the defense team this line of questioning seems completely pointless to me.
It's a sure bet that the investigator would know the names of all the witnesses or have access to documents with the names if he doesn't remember. So why ask him if he knows?

What does her name have to do with the price of eggs or Zimmerman's bond?

From the CNN transcript:

O'MARA: During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described what was happening. How did you get that information?

GILBREATH: From Detective Osteen.

O'MARA: How did he get it?

GILBREATH: He interviewed the witness.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll object to that witness' name being disclosed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

 

[Donjeta]

I think the point of this discussion is MOM disclosing the girls name was being taken as fact in now it's more of an opinion whether he said it, wanted the detective to say it, etc.

The prosecutor objected to the girl's name being disclosed. MOM apologized for his slip and said he realized as soon as he said it. This implies to me that whatever he said, whether it was the name or the question trying to get the investigator to reply was designed so that the name would get disclosed. I don't really see why he'd have apologized if he wasn't going to drag the girl's name into it one way or another.

 

[Donjeta]

From the CNN transcript:

That transcript has redacted the exchange about the investigator knowing or having access to the name

 

[LambChop]

Just like those who say George Zimmerman has told (at least) five different stories yet ignore requests to show links.

I believe it was taken from the cross of GZ by SA during the bond hearing. It was one of the questions SA asked him. jmo

 

[cityslick]

The prosecutor objected to the girl's name being disclosed. MOM apologized for his slip and said he realized as soon as he said it. This implies to me that whatever he said, whether it was the name or the question trying to get the investigator to reply was designed so that the name would get disclosed. I don't really see why he'd have apologized if he wasn't going to drag the girl's name into it one way or another.

If I had to guess, I don't think he was going to get him to say her name. I think he was going to ask a question and maybe it was going to start out with 'did Miss *advertiser censored* .....' It's impossible to make out what he says after that last question IMO.

 

[suzihawk]

If I had to guess, I don't think he was going to get him to say her name. I think he was going to ask a question and maybe it was going to start out with 'did Miss *advertiser censored* .....' It's impossible to make out what he says after that last question IMO.

So you think he was asking her name in order to be polite when referring to her?!?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Everyone makes mistakes but let's be honest, MOM was getting killed on here for days because everyone thought he said her name.

I think the lesson learned is we all need to make sure something actually is said (either via transcript or tape) before determining it as fact.

I agree!

 

[Desdemona]

I believe it was taken from the cross of GZ by SA during the bond hearing. It was one of the questions SA asked him. jmo

Five differing stories? I believe GZ was asked whether he had given five statements to LE.

Not sure whether the number of statements has ever been established anyway, much less whether one differs from another, much less whether they are all different. JMO

That is the issue in question IMO -- the fact that several posters here have stated as a fact or assumption, that GZ has given five differing stories. I have seen nothing to back that up. JMO

 

[cityslick]

So you think he was asking her name in order to be polite when referring to her?!?

No, I think he was in the process of a back and forth with the detective and he was trying to get what the detective knew about her story. It seemed like he was trying to go down the road of what Osteen relayed to him so I can see where he would ask 'what do you know miss .. told him' or something to that effect.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I guess I don't see much difference in saying something yourself, or trying to get someone else to say it...and then getting busted in the middle of it by an objection.

Really?

:waitasec:

He never said her name!
Her name was not "put out there" like people have been screaming for over a week.

I see a big difference.
JMO

 

[tehcloser]

Just like those who say George Zimmerman has told (at least) five different stories yet ignore requests to show links.

“Do you agree that you changed your story?” Mr. de la Rionda asked, referring to the five separate statements that Mr. Zimmerman gave the police about the shooting.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/us/george-zimmerman-bail-hearing.html

 

[Kimberlyd125]

There are many things left out of this transcript, for instance every time they took a break for a commercial, none of that exchange is in there. O'Mara mumbles something under his breath which could very well be the minor's name. Irregardless of whether he says it or not, the implication is there and he had absolutely no reason going there. He's supposed to be a professional but sadly, he's not.


~jmo~

But many people said they HEARD the name.

 

[LambChop]

Five differing stories? I believe GZ was asked whether he had given five statements to LE.

Not sure whether the number of statements has ever been established anyway, much less whether one differs from another, much less whether they are all different. JMO

That is the issue in question IMO -- the fact that several posters here have stated as a fact or assumption, that GZ has given five differing stories. I have seen nothing to back that up. JMO

Wasn't the question asked "Didn't you give five or six different statements to LE? jmo