17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #36

[Donjeta]

Something I would like to see them clarify (because it seems inconsistent or otherwise mysterious to me) is this:

If I've understood GZ's story correctly or if it's been relayed correctly by the various second hand sources he says he saw TM from his vehicle when he was driving to Target. He thought TM was suspicious, stopped, parked his truck and called 911 to report a suspicious individual. He exited his truck and started following TM on foot but was almost immediately told to stop by the dispatcher, which he did. He changed direction and went to get an address from somewhere that TM wasn't at, then turned back to walk to his truck. At this point an irate TM attacked him and asked him, why are you following me, or what's your problem homes, or something to that effect. Possibly he asked first and attacked second, I'm not completely sure.

Does this sound about right?

If so... why did TM attack GZ? Whatever had GZ done to attract his attention at all? Why on earth would he be mad at somebody who sits in his truck having a phone conversation, then walks a very short distance towards him, then turns and goes away? He didn't own the retreat so he wouldn't have had the expectation that he should have all the sidewalks for himself. It wouldn't have appeared like GZ was following him if he turned away very shortly. GZ says he didn't confront TM to make any demands of him.

So why would TM even notice him? Why would he think that GZ was following him? Why would he think that GZ had a problem? Why would he be mad enough to beat him up?

If TM had heard the 911 conversation he could have been mad about GZ reporting him but would he have started a fight if he knew that the police was already on the way? it sounds like a certain way to be busted, and the impression I get from the 911 call is that TM wasn't close enough to hear the conversation anyway.

 

[LambChop]

I agree. There is no reason for GZ to lie about the number of statements since it is going to be made public. And I agree with Beach about possible confusion about what is a statement. Doing the re-enactment and telling his story again would be a statement but he might not think of it that way.

I think the significant point here is that he has given multiple statements and the prosecutor believes that there are meaningful inconsistencies.

I think, too, GZ was caught off guard by the question because he really was not sure how many statements he had given. jmo

 

[grammieto5]

I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.

 

[Donjeta]

I think he might be going wrong because he's trying to react to cues and read the reactions of the prosecutor (his attorney, the judge, other people in the courtroom) and figure out what his answer is supposed to be. It's easy to be led astray that way.

 

[LambChop]

I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.

Does anyone remember a comment that was made about the discovery taking about a week before it's released to MOM? And wouldn't MOM get an original copy with all the witness names on them? So the redacting of names would be for the public only, correct???

 

[LambChop]

I think he might be going wrong because he's trying to react to cues and read the reactions of the prosecutor (his attorney, the judge, other people in the courtroom) and figure out what his answer is supposed to be. It's easy to be led astray that way.

That is one of the problems with not letting you kids get out of their own jams. When they get into a situation where you can't give them the answers they have no life experience to draw from. jmo

 

[Elley Mae]

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/judge-orders-some-states-evidence-be-made-public-g/nNNhD/

The Seminole County judge overseeing George Zimmerman’s murder trial has ordered some of the state's evidence against the accused killer of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin to be made public.

WFTV's legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the file could include information like the probable cause affidavit and investigative reports.

 

[Donjeta]

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/judge-orders-some-states-evidence-be-made-public-g/nNNhD/

The Seminole County judge overseeing George Zimmerman’s murder trial has ordered some of the state's evidence against the accused killer of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin to be made public.

WFTV's legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the file could include information like the probable cause affidavit and investigative reports.

Is this some other probable cause affidavit? They already published it.

 

[zenreaper]

On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, but yesterday, many of the TM supporters were calling for the HEAD of WHOEVER leaked the school info. Quoting FERPA, listing Florida LAW, calling for peole to be FIRED over it, maybe even PROSECUTED. Of course, THAT was the info that listed criminal acts by TM. Now that the TEACHER, whom they KNOW THE NAME OF, has said something POSITIVE, while ALSO releasing confidential information about the discipline record, can't even be question about TRUTH. They believe her WHOLE HEARTEDLY, and are defending her from people pointing out inconsistencies.

So why not call for her to be FIRED? She BROKE THE LAW and released CONFIDENTIAL discplinary records, why the change is stance? :waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, but yesterday, many of the TM supporters were calling for the HEAD of WHOEVER leaked the school info. Quoting FERPA, listing Florida LAW, calling for peole to be FIRED over it, maybe even PROSECUTED. Of course, THAT was the info that listed criminal acts by TM. Now that the TEACHER, whom they KNOW THE NAME OF, has said something POSITIVE, while ALSO releasing confidential information about the discipline record, can't even be question about TRUTH. They believe her WHOLE HEARTEDLY, and are defending her from people pointing out inconsistencies.

So why not call for her to be FIRED? She BROKE THE LAW and released CONFIDENTIAL discplinary records, why the change is stance? :waitasec:

Perhaps she had permission from TM's parents to release the info. TM did not have a list of criminal acts only a disciplinary record. No criminal charges were every filed and he did not have a criminal record. jmo

 

[Phoenixfla]

There was a notation of circling, but not three times.

It has not been transcribed anywhere, because this is a portion in the CNN transcription where they broke away to commercial. It was described as "circling" his car.

I transcribed it myself.

DE LA RIONDA: Did he, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: According to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin? Correct?

GILBREATH: He went after him,Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it true, based on the evidence, Mr. Zimmerman had two flashlights with him?
GILBREATH: Yes.
<snip /tactical flashlight description>

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after' - Mr. Martin, is that correct?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?

GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?

GILBREATH:Yes.

O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.

O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?

GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?

GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head

O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?

GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
​

From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com - Starts at about 1:46:39 (this portion)

From this statement it appears that Golbreath is saying at least one of these things is inconsistent with the evidence: #1 Bashing head against concrete, #2 Bashing occured just prior to the shooting and/or #3 GZ managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk.

I will sure be curious to see which of these statements is not consistent with the evidence. In my mind, #1 is certainly plausible, #2 seems plausible unless they have evidence that the injuries occured to his head before TM was on top of GZ, #3 I don't know what evidence would contradict this.

 

[LynnM]

On the school information as to TM's disciplinary record. Obviously there was a LOT of deleting going on, because we went from 106 pages to SIX, <snipped>

The admins started a new thread. I don't think anything was deleted.

 

[gxm]

I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.

I know I'm a broken record, but my ex-DIL wiggled out of a hit and run charge because she got a doctor to sign off on her having a concussion and not being able to think clearly after she hit a parked car so hard that she had to get out and jump up and down on her bumper to pull it apart, toss the bumper to the side and then take off.

So be prepared for any statement inconsistencies to be the result of head trauma and/or shock.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[LambChop]

From this statement it appears that Golbreath is saying at least one of these things is inconsistent with the evidence: #1 Bashing head against concrete, #2 Bashing occured just prior to the shooting and/or #3 GZ managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk.

I will sure be curious to see which of these statements is not consistent with the evidence. In my mind, #1 is certainly plausible, #2 seems plausible unless they have evidence that the injuries occured to his head before TM was on top of GZ, #3 I don't know what evidence would contradict this.

I think GZ's statement comes into question because TM's feet were facing the pavement. If GZ only moved his head slightly to get it off the cement sidewalk just prior to shooting TM how did TM's body get so far away from the pavement and his head facing the building if he was on top of GZ in that location. Plus GZ claims TM attacked him on the cut through cross walk when TM's body was found yards away from the cut through area. Plus one statement was that TM fell backwards but was found face down with his hands under his body. jmo

 

[Phoenixfla]

I believe wether GZ gave 5,3, 50, or a million statements, all of his statements should have been the same. The truth never changes. How convenient for him, he does not remember.

Would you expect those statements to read verbatim? I contend that inconsistencies may be a mountain, or they may be a mole hill. There COULD be reasonable explainations for inconsistencies, or they may not be.

if I was the SA, I would not rest my case on inconsistencies in the statements of someone that was just involved in a fatal shooting. I sure hope they have more evidence than that. I would venture to say that this event has been the most stressful event in GZs life, and if there are small inconsistencies in his statements, I would not be surprised.

 

[gxm]

I really really want to know the forensics on bullet trajectory, firing distance, and entrance wound. Do you think that will be in the document dump? Is that too much to hope?

 

[mommakk51]

IDK, I'm trying not to assume anything, but who knows? His interview doesn't say, to my knowledge, anything definitive as to whether or not he went outside, only referencing his having locked the patio doors.

He would have had to be outside in order to lock the patio doors, since they are on the outside perimeter of the patio fence. JMO

 

[Phoenixfla]

I think GZ's statement comes into question because TM's feet were facing the pavement. If GZ only moved his head slightly to get it off the cement sidewalk just prior to shooting TM how did TM's body get so far away from the pavement and his head facing the building if he was on top of GZ in that location. Plus GZ claims TM attacked him on the cut through cross walk when TM's body was found yards away from the cut through area. Plus one statement was that TM fell backwards but was found face down with his hands under his body. jmo

Respectfully, do you have a link to this? I thought we don't even know the exact location where the body was located, much less the positioning.

 

[Elley Mae]

He would have had to be outside in order to lock the patio doors, since they are on the outside perimeter of the patio fence. JMO

Thank You!

 

[LambChop]

Would you expect those statements to read verbatim? I contend that inconsistencies may be a mountain, or they may be a mole hill. There COULD be reasonable explainations for inconsistencies, or they may not be.

if I was the SA, I would not rest my case on inconsistencies in the statements of someone that was just involved in a fatal shooting. I sure hope they have more evidence than that. I would venture to say that this event has been the most stressful event in GZs life, and if there are small inconsistencies in his statements, I would not be surprised.

I don't think the State would base their view of inconsistencies on anything minor, or a misstatement by the defendant. These have to be of the "big old lies" kind that concluded he needed to be charged with 2nd degree murder. We're not talking about those, he was wearing a red sweater when it was a jacket types of inconsistencies. We are talking "whoppers", IMO. jmo