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

[Donjeta]

The fact of the matter is if it was the prosecutor that made the slip up, he would be given the benefit of the doubt on here, but because MOM has the title of 'defense lawyer', no such benefit of the doubt is given.

The fact of the matter is that the prosecutor didn't, did he?

Coincidentally, it does not benefit the prosecutor to have people digging up dirt on Trayvon's GF.

 

[cityslick]

bbm, Do we even know that the "phone bill" that came out was for real. If it did get to her testifying would she be allowed to testify to what TM or GZ said. Isn't that hearsay? :waitasec:

I'm not sure about what she heard GZ say because 1) she didn't hear it directly from GZ and 2) she may not be able to identify that it was GZ. I think she would be able to say what TM told her since he told her directly.

 

[badme102]

I don't know. A lot of that twitter evidence looks real to me. Do you have evidence that it is phony?

Like PhoenixFla said, we're not allowed to discuss minors, so I can't post it, just as she can't.

 

[cityslick]

The girlfriends testimony is only a small part of the case and might not ever get in. What is going to sink Zimmerman is his own testimony. His story does not add up with the evidence. No matter what they say or do he lied about what happened that night and the SA can prove it. IMO

I disagree, they need the phone call testimony because that testimony puts a state of mind on TM. It also proves that GZ approached him.

If the phone call doesn't get on, IMO you have a very small chance at conviction, especially 2nd degree.

 

[Elley Mae]

I could care less about this GF. I don't care one iota about her. I just want to know if she will be allowed to testify to what she heard.

 

[Elley Mae]

I'm not sure about what she heard GZ say because 1) she didn't hear it directly from GZ and 2) she may not be able to identify that it was GZ. I think she would be able to say what TM told her since he told her directly.

Thank You:fence:

 

[Desdemona]

That's why they didn't want to hear it at the bond hearing. Nobody needed to be present except for the immediate family and attorneys if requested. There would have been no need to lie about anything said. Neither side would have an advantage. IMHO, the public apology given by GZ at the hearing was 1) public and 2) not an apology.
"I'm sorry for the loss of your son" is not an apology for shooting him. That's what dozens upon dozens of people said to me at my father's funeral. Everyone is sorry for someone else's loss.

And yet, that is precisely what Sybrina said she wanted to hear from GZ.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LNT7hXXJLk&feature=related"]Trayvon's Murder: Mother's Interview After Zimmerman's Charged - YouTube[/ame]

The Today Show, Sybrina's entire reply. Question is asked at 3:08.
​

Ann Curry: Tracy and Sybrina, either of you can take this question:

If you were to come face to face with George Zimmerman, what do you want to tell him? What do you want to ask him?


Sybrina: Um, one of the things that I still believe in, a person should apologize when they're really, when they're actually remorseful for what they've done. Um, I believe that it was a(n) accident, I believe that uh, it just got out of control, and he couldn't turn the clock back.

Um, I would ask him: Did he know that that was a minor? That that was a teenager, and that he did not have a weapon?

Um, I would ask him, that I understand that his family is hurting, but think about our family, that lost our teenage son; I mean it's just very difficult to live with day in and day out. Um, I'm sure that his parents can pick up the phone and call him, but we can't pick up the phone and call Trayvon any more.
--

IMO, Sybrina did in fact express a clear and distinct wish to hear a sincere expression of condolence, literally "for the loss of their son," in addition to answering those two specific questions.

A statement like "I am sorry I shot your son" would unfortunately be used unfairly to attack his self-defense defense. I believe GZ feels terrible about what happened, and respectfully gave the victim's mother exactly what she asked for, without sacrificing himself to a possible life in prison for something he claims he didn't to: commit murder.

If GZ truly acted in self-defense to protect his own life, and is therefore unfairly and wrongly charged with murder, it would be ludicrous legal suicide for him to actually apologize, as he no doubt would have done immediately, and no doubt longs to do, were he not otherwise so crucially constrained.

JMO
BBM

 

[cityslick]

The fact of the matter is that the prosecutor didn't, did he?

Coincidentally, it does not benefit the prosecutor to have people digging up dirt on Trayvon's GF.

Why does a slip up always have to be intentional, no matter who says it?

 

[katydid23]

The fact of the matter is that the prosecutor didn't, did he?

Coincidentally, it does not benefit the prosecutor to have people digging up dirt on Trayvon's GF.

I don't think it is a matter of 'digging up dirt' about her. But if Crump is telling us that she did XY and Z on certain dates, and her social network sites show that XY and Z did not actually happen, then that is not dirt on the girl at all. But it does make Crump look like he manufactured a story for public consumption. imo

 

[Donjeta]

IANAL but wouldn't the GF be a direct witness to whatever she heard in the conversation? If she said heard someone say "There's a black dog" would be evidence that someone said there was a black dog, but it wouldn't be considered as evidence that there was a black dog because it would be hearsay.

 

[Emma Peel]

MOM may have slipped and said the gf witness' b/c he'd been saying that name (in his office, internally, with staff, in his own head) a lot more than other witness' names.

Simply put - that name was on his overwhelmed mind. IF (and please note that's an IF!) MOM's utterance was a slip, it makes sense he'd slip the name that he's most familiar with, and most concerned about.

Now, I'm not trying to take any sides here. He shouldn't have slipped. At all. Just the same, having suggested that it makes a bit of sense, that this would be the particular name on his mind (more than other witnesses), and that was why that name was slipped ... I'm now going to hide for a little bit.

:cowcouch:

 

[elementary]

In all reality can a lawyer who is "slicker than snot" and uses underhanded tactics be described as being a competent lawyer? JMHO

Good point! I guess he is not totally confident of his lawyering skills in a court of law.

 

[rotterdam]

I don't consider it rhetoric, And I"m sorry you disagree. Remove the blogs, remove even MSM. They don't matter. They are ethically wrong to disclose a minor's name and it doesn't matter that the WEB has that information. I expect more from a defense counsel who knows the law.

In a court of law Mark O'Mara said the name of a witness. While later in the hearing because of the Sunshine Act, he told the Judge he wanted the names of the witnesses sealed. The State stood up in a court of law and said that they had the discovery but were asked by Mark O'Mara not to give it to them so that they could work on an agreement to protect the witnesses. The Judge said work it out.

My personal belief is that is was no accident. And I'm sorry if others need to dismiss my opinion and that of others here as rhetoric, in an effort to dismiss the validity of the argument.

It is what happened, and my opinion is as valid as those that said it was a oopsie moment. How would anyone know that. One opinion is no more rhetoric that the other. It took off all over the internet. Sly like a fox he is." And, as a result it did increase the ferocity of the posting on the internet about this girl IMO including misleading records that surfaced that were phone records in Pacific Timezone.

I agree with your rhetoric. MOM thinks first before he opens his mouth. Probably went thru a bunch of "what ifs" the evening before the bond hearing. And only forced those things out in the public domain that he wanted to. Like that cross examination of the State's investigator.
And now he is massaging/hyping that 15K fairly mundane bond posting.
Who cares, much more interested in the lions share of the loot.

 

[Donjeta]

Why does a slip up always have to be intentional, no matter who says it?

You don't get paid $400 per hour for very long if everything you do is a mistake. IMO.

He is someone's defense lawyer. He really needs to pay more attention if he's making all these mistakes completely unintentionally.

 

[suzihawk]

Like PhoenixFla said, we're not allowed to discuss minors, so I can't post it, just as she can't.

It seems to me like there's a lot of discussion going on about that which we're not allowed to discuss.

 

[Elley Mae]

Will crump have to turn over the affidavit he did with GF before she testify's?

 

[badme102]

The constant repeating of wrong information here is bothersome to say the least. jmo no links available, sorry:blushing:

You can say that again!
Wrong information to you doesn't necessarily mean that the information is wrong in fact. Your "beliefs" lead you to certain conclusions that could be totally wrong, yet you believe them 100%. ('you' in general sense, not you, specifically)

Frankly, in my very strong opinion, it is wrong to say that other's information or opinions are wrong just because you (collectively) don't agree with it.

 

[lauriej]

I could care less about this GF. I don't care one iota about her. I just want to know if she will be allowed to testify to what she heard.

--there's a verified lawyer Q & A sticky thread now, that would be an excellent question to ask there.


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170300"]Trayvon Martin -George Zimmerman Verified Lawyer Q&A **NO DISCUSSION** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

---george zimmerman---verified lawyer Q & A---

 

[cityslick]

IANAL but wouldn't the GF be a direct witness to whatever she heard in the conversation? If she said heard someone say "There's a black dog" would be evidence that someone said there was a black dog, but it wouldn't be considered as evidence that there was a black dog because it would be hearsay.

I agree, I think she would be able to testify to what was directly told to her (I believe there is a clause for this in the hearsay rule, when you hear something from a deceased) but that's about it. TM saying 'this guy is following me' isn't evidence that someone was following TM, just that she heard him say that.

 

[Desdemona]

Do you want the link regarding KlanKannon ALLEDGEDLY hacking Trayvon's social media accounts? The tweets posted are UNAUTHENTICATED and simply smear Trayvon's character.

I believe in asking for an allowed link I was tactfully probing as to whether that is something we are allowed to discuss here. JMO