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

Status
Not open for further replies.

vlpate

Sleuther with a porpoise
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
7,111
Reaction score
2,919
Website
www.facebook.com
No I absolutely disagree with this, I suggest unfortunately you may have to listen yet again.

I just listened to all the 911 calls again, two different callers said "black guy". No one said "black jacket". Hope this helps!
 

uvamerica

Former Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
664
Reaction score
0
Ruh-Roh....So they are expecting a Florida jury, chosen from a panel of people who do not read or listen to the news, to actually connect the dots on some circumstantial evidence...hmmmmmmm... That could be a problem.

BBM How do you know all the state has is some circumstantial evidence ?

Do you have a link ?
 

LambChop

Former Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,160
Reaction score
29
I think he would have waited for discovery rather than ask at the bond hearing if he didn't know the answer. He has no reason to want the Judge to know that information for the bond unless he knows the answer is favorable to him and he is, imo, in no hurry to get before the court on the substantive issues. jmo

The public has already been told the screams are not from GZ by two experts. MOM had nothing to lose by asking the question and from the way he asked the question he was able to get the answer he wanted. The inspector was the wrong person to ask a question about a test that should have been directed to the experts.

jmo
 

Phoenixfla

New Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
550
Reaction score
0
I can't wait until an actual hearing in this case about whether or not evidence will be allowed in/out of the trial. All this over a bond hearing? It was a bond hearing! :floorlaugh: This was not a trial or even a hearing about evidence. Still trying to figure out why it was even brought up in the first place as O'Mara hadn't been given any discovery.

MOO

IMO it was brought up by O'Mara to show weaknesses in the state's case which would dictate a lower bail. JMO MOO
 

Gin

Share a smile
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
15
So you think Zimmerman's will be over their fear and will be in court during the trial?

I have been puzzled by tv interviews in shadow, testifying over the phone. Still, I would think they would want to be present in court at trial.

On the other hand....

If I am allowed a bit of levity here, I can kinda imagine a row of folks in identical secret squirrel costumes.
 

Boytwnmom

Verified Attorney
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
298
HOW his client was SCREAMING while his mouth and nose were covered according George's OWN statement? Seriously, those of you who believe it was George screaming explain that position in light of (1) his own statement; (2) the two experts who found otherwise; (3) TRayvons parents identification. How do you scream while your mouth and nose are covered?

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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the defendant -- did he not state or claim that the victim in this case, Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so that he couldn't breathe?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that's when he was able to get free and grab the gun. Or I'm sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun, did he not claim that too at some point. climb that?

GILBREATH: Yes.



I think he would have waited for discovery rather than ask at the bond hearing if he didn't know the answer. He has no reason to want the Judge to know that information for the bond unless he knows the answer is favorable to him and he is, imo, in no hurry to get before the court on the substantive issues. jmo
 

Boytwnmom

Verified Attorney
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
298
I hide them behind the frozen chicken parts in the basement freezer so my kids can't eat them. Is that wrong? I figure they will gladly eat inferior ice cream so why even get them used to better stuff so that they will only be disappointed by the types of ice cream they will be most routinely served? I'm doing it for THEM!


Thanks but I found a Klondike Bar and it's gone already. lol
 

Boytwnmom

Verified Attorney
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
298
the detective wasn't scheduled to testify and wasn't even called specifically so he obviously had not prepared and reviewed anything in anticipation of testimony as one normally would. It is easy enough to have later testimony introduce evidence that he didn't disclose during the bail hearing he wasn't even scheduled to testify at. He purposely called someone NOT prepared to testify and tried to make it look like the state didn't have anything. The state knew he would get bond-they had no dog in the fight and certainly weren't going to go out of their way to bite the hook on MOM's fishing expedition.


So? What did they say that was so bad? They couldn't very well answer questions they didn't know the answers to. IMO, it's none of their business what the SA has until it is ready to be handed over through discovery.

MOO
 

jjenny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
31,697
Reaction score
47,052
The "rule" only applies to questions that are sure to go unanswered if unasked.

The tests of the screams are going to be made public whether or not O'Mara asks about them.

Frankly, what is odd is the willingness of some to believe Corey is relying on TM's mother's i.d. alone, without any preliminary, confirmatory testing. It's going to be HUGELY destructive to the State's case if testing reveals the screams to come from GZ after the State has made its assertions in the probable cause affidavit.

I think it's much more likely that preliminary testing has shown what we have heard: that the screams do not seem to come from GZ. So the SA is willing to rely on the mother's account while they wait for a positive vocal i.d.

I don't think that is likely at all. I think the best they can hope is inconclusive because there are few words in those screams.
 

Phoenixfla

New Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
550
Reaction score
0
It could have been a third, as yet unidentified, party. A horrified witness, say.

No, I don't think it was, but Gilbreath was asked if the testing itself identified the source of the voice. He had to respond "no." That won't prevent the State from arguing in the future that logical deduction leads one to the conclusion it was TM screaming.

And besides, the State had already decided to depend, for the moment anyway, on TM's mother's identification of the screams.

Not picking in you, but that is not exactly what he asked:

O'MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon's mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin's voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?

GILBREATH: Did I?

O'MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?

GILBREATH: The "Orlando Sentinel" had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.

Please note both are past tense.

O'MARA: Is that part of your investigation?

GILBREATH: Yes.

He has included them in his investigation and therefore he must have some results, even if they were inconclusive.

O'MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?

Gilbreath could have just said "yes" if he had any conclusive evidence one way or another.

GILBREATH: No.
 

Ambrosia

New Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BI03-MRKnI&feature=relmfu"]George Zimmerman Police Call w. Time Stamps and Notes - YouTube[/ame] Zimmerman: "Um if they come in through the uh....(taptap / taptap) gate ."Tell them to go straight past the clubhouse....(taptaptaptap) and uh.....(then a waiting pause as distracted) + screech sound) then back to dispatch. Zimmerman: "straight past the clubhouse..and make a left." (SCREECH TYPE SOUND AT 7:12:44 any guesses?) Could it be a pet bird on someones porch? An cockatoo screech sound.
 

impatientredhead

New Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
6,475
Reaction score
33
BBM How do you know all the state has is some circumstantial evidence ?

Do you have a link ?

Any evidence other than a statement made by a witness is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence requires that you interpret the evidence or draw a conclusion. Finger prints are circumstantial evidence.
 

Phoenixfla

New Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
550
Reaction score
0
If the DA had those test results, they would come out eventually anyway.

All O'Mara risked was their coming out now, with plenty of time for the resulting furor to die down before trial. If the DA has such proof, the defense wants it out sooner rather than later, because it might affect O'Mara's entire approach to his defense of GZ.

I respectfully disagree. He would have received it soon enough, and I actually think O'Mara was probably surprised when Gilbreath said that the FBI has had someone examine it and that still gave Gilbreath no insight as to the voice.
 

Karmady

Former Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
15
HOW his client was SCREAMING while his mouth and nose were covered according George's OWN statement? Seriously, those of you who believe it was George screaming explain that position in light of (1) his own statement; (2) the two experts who found otherwise; (3) TRayvons parents identification. How do you scream while your mouth and nose are covered?

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

You would put your hand over someone's mouth to stop them screaming only after they had begun to scream. Also, why would George say that Trayvon tried to cover his mouth and nose to stop him screaming at all if he knew that Trayvon was screaming, i.e. someone was screaming loudly and was, presumably, likely to heard by the neighbors.

I discount the two "experts" completely at this point. The one guy (the software salesman, iirc) is just totally not credible imo, and in the article I saw, the guy that I did find credible was not directly quoted. Then there's the investigator's testimony.
 

Karmady

Former Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
15
the detective wasn't scheduled to testify and wasn't even called specifically so he obviously had not prepared and reviewed anything in anticipation of testimony as one normally would. It is easy enough to have later testimony introduce evidence that he didn't disclose during the bail hearing he wasn't even scheduled to testify at. He purposely called someone NOT prepared to testify and tried to make it look like the state didn't have anything. The state knew he would get bond-they had no dog in the fight and certainly weren't going to go out of their way to bite the hook on MOM's fishing expedition.

If that were the case, the answer is "I don't know"
 

LambChop

Former Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,160
Reaction score
29
Any evidence other than a statement made by a witness is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence requires that you interpret the evidence or draw a conclusion. Finger prints are circumstantial evidence.

The body is not circumstantial evidence it is forensic evidence because the bullet path will tell exactly what position TM was in when he was shot. Finger prints are forensic evidence. jmo
 

impatientredhead

New Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
6,475
Reaction score
33
The body is not circumstantial evidence it is forensic evidence because the bullet path will tell exactly what position TM was in when he was shot. Finger prints are forensic evidence. jmo

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred. (Note that an inference of guilt could be incorrect if the person who actually fired the weapon was somebody else.)

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence"]Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 

vlpate

Sleuther with a porpoise
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
7,111
Reaction score
2,919
Website
www.facebook.com
< mod snip > I was not talking about any officer, < mod snip >

is more "important" to them to take a picture of a TEENY, TINY SCRATCH, than to try to help a dying child. SICK, SICK, SICK!


Your post left me with the impression that you were concerned < mod snip > that no one was attending to TM while the photograph was being shot. Goodness, that would be negligent! Anyway, I thought the report might help assuage your concern.

Just FYI - Taking a picture "close up" doesn't mean the photographer has to be standing over the person - there are features on smart phones that make it possible to zoom in from quite a distance away - my iPhone has a zoom feature such as this. Whomever took the photo could have been on a second floor even. JMO
 

LambChop

Former Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,160
Reaction score
29
You would put your hand over someone's mouth to stop them screaming only after they had begun to scream. Also, why would George say that Trayvon tried to cover his mouth and nose to stop him screaming at all if he knew that Trayvon was screaming, i.e. someone was screaming loudly and was, presumably, likely to heard by the neighbors.

I discount the two "experts" completely at this point. The one guy (the software salesman, iirc) is just totally not credible imo, and in the article I saw, the guy that I did find credible was not directly quoted. Then there's the investigator's testimony.

Obviously GZ did not hear the 911 tapes the night he testified and was not aware they even existed. I believe he told LE that it was him that kept calling for help so he did know about the screams. I believe only GZ can answer why he said the things he did that seem inconsistent. In the heat of the moment I sounds like it was GZ that was not thinking straight. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top