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

[LambChop]

So your saying that Gilbreath would have never answered "yes" to "Has that given any insight as to the voice?" Maybe

:fence:

He can't give insight into who the voice belongs to because he did not specifically do the testing. Gilbreath is not an expert in that field. That is a question for the voice expert doing the testing. MOM knew he could not answer the question with a yes. That's why he asked it. During the trial it's a question he can't ask an investigator, IMO, because the investigator has no first hand knowledge only the expert could testify. jmo

 

[Concerned Papa]

What is the disparity? In one sentence he is talking about GZ, in the other he is talking about Trayvon. I'm not sure how he knows whether or not GZ was going "away" from Trayvon since he didn't know Trayvon's location.

What disparity?:waitasec:

Considering the 911 call's verification of the timing of events, shown in red, the disparity would seem rather obvious when on one hand an attorney states his client, after walking just 18 seconds away from his vehicle, then turned and walked back towards his vehicle:

O'MARA: And within that statement, he got out of his car………..and began to go towards the person. [7:11:42 pm]

O'MARA: And then he said he went back around and went towards his car, did he not?

GILBREATH: In his statement after he was told not to by the dispatcher. [7:12:00 pm]

O'MARA: Got you.

While on the other hand acknowledged for the record, the location of the body of a 17 year old kid his client killed, 4 minutes and 41 seconds LATER at [7:16:41 pm], being hundreds of feet away from his client's vehicle in the OPPOSITE direction:

GILBREATH: Because the location he was found in….is probably….and I don’t have the exact measurements….it’s in the path to the back door of the house where he was staying.

O’MARA: I think the evidence suggested it was 70 yards away, right?

Just a part of what led to this truthful, simple response:

GILBREATH:

• We have Mr. Zimmerman's statements,

• we have the shell casings

• and we had Mr. Martin's body.

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

 

[sleonardelli]

Gee to me, that sounds like no they didn't ask GZ for the records, why would they ask GZ for records that he could manufacture or alter?

What does some other case about a 20 yr. old AA woman have to do with this case? I thought your position was that this case had nothing to do with "race", are you now saying at GZ did "profile" TM because of his race?

IDK, it's an AC SYG case and perhaps this will put it in perspective: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/254334/483/CNN-Marissa-Alexander-in-Her-Own-Words

"'There's a double standard with stand your ground', said Isaiah Rumlin, president of the Jacksonville Chapter of the NAACP. The law is applied differently between African-Americans and whites who are involved in these types of cases, he added."

IMO, it's not necessarily about race but how the SYG law is applied inconsistently.

 

[rossva]

I wasn't aware Zimmerman had made so many statements. Can you please supply links for five statements he has made?

1. Which of the 5 statements that Zimmerman gave was the one that stated Trayvon had his hands over his mouth?

2. Do you happen to have a link that these experts have been discredited?

3. Zimmerman's family have many inconsistencies in their statements to the media which makes them very unreliable for any source of accurate information.



~jmo~

 

[Just K]

Fists are overruled by guns...GZ always had the upper hand and he knew it. Trayvon was brought into this whole situation by Gz.

GZ did not and appears will not play fair.

He reminds me of a whiny little tattle tale who says or does whatever he believes will best get the other guy into trouble. He is the classic cry baby looking for sympathy and if he doesn't get that he looks for revenge. In this case he picked an innocent kid who reminded him of the ones that got away.

 

[Elley Mae]

You know you are right. Even the male caller on the 911 tape says they were wrestling.

Then it appears his story changes and I wonder why it changed?

Neighbor #1, male - Call begins 4:12

Police … I just heard a shot right behind my house. [4:14] They’re wrestling right in the back of my porch.

http://www.examiner.com/article/nei...-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martin-transcribed

The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...led-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1tQLEF3n1

Was ir not witness "john" that also said he saw 2 people with flashlights. Was thinking that maybe one of those 2 took the picture of GZ's head.

 

[Just K]

Was ir not witness "john" that also said he saw 2 people with flashlights. Was thinking that maybe one of those 2 took the picture of GZ's head.

I have wondered if one of those people was GZ and the other his neighbor/friend who took the picture.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I found it quite the read myself. Everything happened so quickly that weekend. On Friday, the 16th the 911 tapes were released to the family, on the 18th, the call was found by Tracy, he called her, on the 20th Crump was giving a very long-winded press conference about this new development.

I find it so odd that the moment TM started running, 7:12, is the moment he gets a call from his g/f. Almost too perfect, IMO.

BBM

Perfect indeed!

BTW, a minor point would be that since the 911 call actually began at 7:09:34 pm, and 911 recordings and transcripts show GZ getting out of his vehicle and saying "he's running" [2:08] later, the actual clock time for the moment GZ said TM started running would be 18 seconds earlier than 7:12 pm at 7:11:42 pm.

Still, like you, I wonder how GZ got the country's number four ranked cellular service provider to show this phone log entry for one of it's 34,000,000 subscribers? :waitasec:

 

[Just K]

There is no refuting that TM phone was connected to the call, with his GF, @ 7:12 PM EST 2/26/2012. That call was billed to 7:16 PM and most likely rounded up by TMobile. So by 7:16 TM had come face to face with the man who had followed him with a loaded gun. By 7:17 PM TM was shot dead.

 

[jjenny]

If someone was on top of me with their hand over my mouth and nose, I would be biting, kicking, scratching, bucking my body, pulling hair, basically doing anything I could to survive. Myself and the other person would have so many bruises, scratches, missing patches of hair all which would be PHYSICAL evidence of a fight for my life!

Have you ever actually been involved in a fight?

 

[jjenny]

He can't give insight into who the voice belongs to because he did not specifically do the testing. Gilbreath is not an expert in that field. That is a question for the voice expert doing the testing. MOM knew he could not answer the question with a yes. That's why he asked it. During the trial it's a question he can't ask an investigator, IMO, because the investigator has no first hand knowledge only the expert could testify. jmo

He doesn't need to do the testing personally to have insight. He just needs to know of the results of such testing.

 

[jjenny]

I clearly heard two shots on one 911 call. I jumped twice.

Haven't heard anything of the sort.
One shot is heard, that's it.

 

[LambChop]

He doesn't need to do the testing personally to have insight. He just needs to know of the results of such testing.

He can't testify regarding who the voice belonged to and wouldn't it be hearsay. Only the expert can testify to what he has found. The OS experts did not determine who the voice belonged to only that it was not GZ. MOM did not ask the inspector if he had insight into whether or not it was GZ's voice, he asked if he had any insight into the voice itself. Big difference in what MOM was asking.

If the FBI has submitted a report to the SA it should show up in discovery. jmo

 

[LambChop]

Haven't heard anything of the sort.
One shot is heard, that's it.

They believe it was an echo because it was not heard on all 911 calls. Depending on the location of the condo, some appear to have an echo of the shot. jmo

 

[LambChop]

Have you ever actually been involved in a fight?

I haven't personally, but I have engaged in quite a few wrestling matches. lol

 

[Concerned Papa]

Have you ever actually been involved in a fight?

I refuse to answer that question based on my Constitutionally protected Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination. :rocker:

 

[Just K]

If I say to someone:
I went to the store last night.
Then tell someone else I went to a drugstore last night.
Then tell a third person, I went to CVS, last night.
Then tell an attorney, on Saturday, April 28, 2012, around 4:30 PM, I went to CVS, bought medicine and pop tarts and then questioned the clerk...

It does not mean any of those statements are false. The last one simply provides the most details about my "trip to the store, last night."

I get sick and tired of the black & white arguments that say things like but he/she said such & such so they are changing their story.

If I said:
I thought about stopping at the drugstore, last night. That statement is also true.

However, if I later said any of the following:
I did not go to the drugstore on Saturday, April 29th, 2012 (note, how I conveniently changed the number of the date making this statement true but misleading)

I left point A and went home...(conveniently leaving out my stop at the drugstore.)

I don't like CVS, why would I go to a store I don't like, I went home.

All of these statements are also true but they are misleading or omitting relevant details.

You can quote any of these statements and say that my story has changed when in fact I have simply given the facts in several different ways.

Now, if later you question me as to why I was not home by a certain time and:

I say that the clerk short changed me and I thought I saw him pocket a dollar... that I had to check the receipt, so I was there longer than I thought.

Well, now I am embellishing the facts. I did check my receipt but not because I thought the clerk short changed me but, in fact, because I thought the total was too high. I've now added all of this because you questioned me as to why I was there longer than I said I was. Now we have something to question. Get the video from CVS, question the clerk, etc and compare notes.

The clerk said I questioned the total. He did not want to be accused of stealing...I wanted an excuse for my time change and making someone else look bad might make me sound even better. So what if the clerk gets fired?

This is the type of logic I see from many people discussing this case. Trouble is, when GZ hears of new witness statements, he tweeks his story to best fit the latest developments in his case.

 

[jjenny]

He can't testify regarding who the voice belonged to and wouldn't it be hearsay. Only the expert can testify to what he has found. The OS experts did not determine who the voice belonged to only that it was not GZ. MOM did not ask the inspector if he had insight into whether or not it was GZ's voice, he asked if he had any insight into the voice itself. Big difference in what MOM was asking.

If the FBI has submitted a report to the SA it should show up in discovery. jmo

Then how could he testify whether head injuries were consistent with head being struck on the concrete or not? He isn't an expert in that area either.

 

[Just K]

Just to add to my lengthy example above:
A friend of mine was late meeting me. He said, "I'm sorry I'm late. There was an accident on I-65."

Being an honest person, I took his word for it. But, after years of experience with people saying things that are true, in fact, but not relative to the exact situation, I know I should have responded by saying, "Yes, I'm sure there was an accident on I-65, sometime today, but that is not why you are late meeting me."

Truth is a funny thing, isn't it?

 

[Adrienne37]

If I say to someone:
I went to the store last night.
Then tell someone else I went to a drugstore last night.
Then tell a third person, I went to CVS, last night.
Then tell an attorney, on Saturday, April 28, 2012, around 4:30 PM, I went to CVS, bought medicine and pop tarts and then questioned the clerk...

It does not mean any of those statements are false. The last one simply provides the most details about my "trip to the store, last night."

I get sick and tired of the black & white arguments that say things like but he/she said such & such so they are changing their story.

If I said:
I thought about stopping at the drugstore, last night. That statement is also true.

However, if I later said any of the following:
I did not go to the drugstore on Saturday, April 29th, 2012 (note, how I conveniently changed the number of the date making this statement true but misleading)

I left point A and went home...(conveniently leaving out my stop at the drugstore.)

I don't like CVS, why would I go to a store I don't like, I went home.

All of these statements are also true but they are misleading or omitting relevant details.

You can quote any of these statements and say that my story has changed when in fact I have simply given the facts in several different ways.

Now, if later you question me as to why I was not home by a certain time and:

I say that the clerk short changed me and I thought I saw him pocket a dollar... that I had to check the receipt, so I was there longer than I thought.

Well, now I am embellishing the facts. I did check my receipt but not because I thought the clerk short changed me but, in fact, because I thought the total was too high. I've now added all of this because you questioned me as to why I was there longer than I said I was. Now we have something to question. Get the video from CVS, question the clerk, etc and compare notes.

The clerk said I questioned the total. He did not want to be accused of stealing...I wanted an excuse for my time change and making someone else look bad might make me sound even better. So what if the clerk gets fired?

This is the type of logic I see from many people discussing this case. Trouble is, when GZ hears of new witness statements, he tweeks his story to best fit the latest developments in his case.

Which is exactly what Investigator Gilbreath said on the witness stand.


~jmo~