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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm aware of "Jon" at 2861 Retreat View, however he is not witness "John". I understand the confusion, but let me point out two things.

This is 2861 Retreat View:

TMSneak.jpg


Notice the exterior paint scheme? Alternating buildings are darker in body color with white trim as is this building where "Jon" owns.

Now watch the video and listen to the interview of "John". It is clearly the witness that alleges to have seen the red sweater on bottom, etc. His interview is word for word what has been widely discussed and reported.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...n-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

Notice the color scheme of "John's" building and addy of 1221 Twin Trees Lane. It is the lighter body with darker trim.

TMJohn.png

Nice work.
 
Something just came to me:
At the time of the first questioning and at the time of the re-enactment, GZ, the police, RZ Sr nor any of the "witnesses" knew that TM was on a phone call at the exact moment that he and Trayvon came face to face and less than a minute later Trayvon was dead.

Yes and Zimmerman Sr, says he doesn't believe that was true. He said he is thankful that the FBI is involved because they will confirm that Trayvon was not on the phone with the friend.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032812-exclusive-robert-zimmerman-interview
 
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 would expect main points of his statements to be the same, the little unimportant issues no. I believe the SA has more information/evidence then we do. I would very much like to see Trayvons autopsy report, I believe the truth is there, I also believe it will not match any of GZ statements. I also believe it was in part because of the inconsistencies that charges were brought against GZ.
 
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.

Beautifully asked, summarized and worth repeating.
 
Something just came to me:
At the time of the first questioning and at the time of the re-enactment, GZ, the police, RZ Sr nor any of the "witnesses" knew that TM was on a phone call at the exact moment that he and Trayvon came face to face and less than a minute later Trayvon was dead.

Excellent point! Thus far, only the g/f says TM was on the phone w/her. I'd also like to know where his ear buds were found.
 
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.

It's weird, though. Defendants are deemed suspicious if their stories change.

But there's also a famous legal case (I think it was litigation in re the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire) in which a lawyer DIScredited a witness by asking her to tell her story three times. When she told it exactly the same each time, the lawyer argued that she had memorized her story and wasn't describing an honest memory.

So both inconsistency and consistency are held against witnesses.
 
Excellent point! Thus far, only the g/f says TM was on the phone w/her. I'd also like to know where his ear buds were found.

Bjut don't his cell records and her cell records probably match up?
 
But I believe the message SA was trying to get through to GZ was that those statements were recorded. Those very statements, IMO, would have been to determine what charges the DA should have brought against GZ. The charges now we know are 2nd degree murder. So what inconsistencies led them to believe that. Once those statements are released through discovery we will be able to check them out ourselves. Sometimes when people are inconsistent in the statements because those statements are not based entirely on the truth people are not aware of the inconsistencies and it would be only natural to answer absolutely not. jmo

And the detective testified that the statements GZ gave were also inconsistent with the evidence the SA has.
 
I guess I will have to watch the bond hearing again, because I am pretty sure that when he said all the names run together, was when he was trying to remember who he told that he felt sorry for Trayvon's parents. I really don't remember him saying that very same phrase twice..Will listen again later. :moo:

No. He never said it twice. There were two questions. He answered affirmative "yes" to the 5 statements (and we know there were at least 4). He then said he did not know their names which he would have answered, "No." regarding not knowing their names. There were two questions by SA. GZ answered yes to one questions and he did not know the names to the other. If GZ did not understand the question he would have told SA please explain. But he did not. He answered both questions. jmo
 
I dont doubt they were on the phone at some point, but I dont believe that the girl friend was alarmed by anything she heard or else she would have called 911.

Do you call 911 everytime you lose someone on a cell phone?
 
Great find on that article. Wonder if the MSM will sue the prosecutor.

Both sides have said they want witness names withheld, out of fear for their safety and to prevent news media from interviewing witness about out what happened. But neither side bothered to file a motion asking Judge Lester to keep that information secret before the 15 day deadline was up.

O'Mara, however, disputes that the information needs to be released to the public now. Despite how O'Mara demanded discovery within 15 days of April 12 in his motion, on two occasions he told Local 6 -- once during an April 25 phone interview and again in person after Friday's hearing -- that the 15 day deadline that marks when Corey is required to turn over discovery to him, and then the public, doesn't start ticking until a defendant's arraignment. Zimmerman's is set for May 8.

The day after Local 6 published a story explaining how Ponce refuted O'Mara's deadline pegging discovery disclosure requirements to the upcoming May 8 arraignment, O'Mara backed off his initial statement and made a different argument about why Corey isn't required to release the discovery to members of the public.

"While the rules do state that discovery is due 15 days from demand, that is a right which George Zimmerman enjoys, and it is up to his defense team to decide how to handle these matters," read a statement on GZLegalCase.com, a website O'Mara setup partly to "dispute misinformation."

"We are delaying demanding the discovery until we can file motions to protect these witnesses," O'Mara's statement continues. "Once that is in place, discovery will flow to us, then the media and the public has access to it, under our rules."

But several lawyers Local 6 interviewed believe O'Mara is too late. They don't see how he can file a written demand for discovery within 15 days of April 12 with the court, and then somehow claim the deadline in Rule 3.220(b) doesn't apply -- just so that he can delay the public release of the records in order to file a motion to hide witness information he had plenty of time to file before the deadline.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is...7132/12514756/-/item/1/-/j4gnojz/-/index.html
 
By that token, we should throw out all five of Zimmerman's statements recounting the night of the shooting. After all, not only did he lie, he lied under oath about not knowing how old Trayvon was.
How do we know whether GZ lied?

We have not heard GZ's story yet. I have seen nothing yet to indicate that GZ has lied about what happened that night, whether under oath or while cooperating with LE's investigation, about how old he thought TM was, or about anything else. That's not to say he has not lied or perjured himself, but I've not seen proof of that yet. JMO

(Pointing this out because your post doesn't indicate whether you believe it is a fact, or are merely expressing your opinion that he has lied under oath. JMO)

/bbm
 
I wonder which of these statements was really Tray's last words. First they told us it was " you got me.", and now we are being told that it was really "Okay, you got it." That he repeated "Okay, you got it" two times, and then fell face down to the ground. I keep playing, and replaying that over and over again in my head.. and it keeps pointing me back to one thing. The end of the call to the non-emergency line.. Coincidence much?
 
Is this normal, for the person who has murdered someone to go back to the scene of the crime to do a reenactment of the crime, and to have his father there? Who was there to speak for Trayvon?
 
I dont doubt they were on the phone at some point, but I dont believe that the girl friend was alarmed by anything she heard or else she would have called 911.

And said what?

"My call with my boyfriend was disconnected. He is somewhere 250 miles away; I don't know the address. But I heard a stranger ask him a couple of questions."

Somehow I don't see 911 jumping on that one... I'm not sure *I* would have known what to do under those circumstances and I'm a lot older than 15.
 
Yes and Zimmerman Sr, says he doesn't believe that was true. He said he is thankful that the FBI is involved because they will confirm that Trayvon was not on the phone with the friend.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032812-exclusive-robert-zimmerman-interview

of course GZ Sr is going to say that. How would he know whether or not Trayvon was on the phone? That's what teenagers do, talk on the phone all the time!!

It's so sad that Trayvon isn't here to tell his side of the story!
 
How do we know whether GZ lied?

We have not heard GZ's story yet. I have seen nothing yet to indicate that GZ has lied about what happened that night, whether under oath or while cooperating with LE's investigation, about how old he thought TM was, or about anything else. That's not to say he has not lied or perjured himself, but I've not seen proof of that yet. JMO

(Pointing this out because your post doesn't indicate whether you believe it is a fact, or are merely expressing your opinion that he has lied under oath. JMO)

/bbm

When the LE dispatcher asked GZ how old he thought TM was he said late teens. On the stand he said a little younger than he was. (25, 26???). That's the lie. Could be he forgot what he told the dispatcher. I think GZ may have a history of telling people what they want to hear. At the bond hearing he was clearly trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the Martins. jmo
 
Is this normal, for the person who has murdered someone to go back to the scene of the crime to do a reenactment of the crime, and to have his father there? Who was there to speak for Trayvon?

At that point he was considered SYG untouchable. I'm sure he thought it was all over but agreed to the reenactment because he was free and clear. Not sure they will be able to use that in court if he was considered free to go. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
2,592
Total visitors
2,761

Forum statistics

Threads
590,041
Messages
17,929,260
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top