Author Topic: Witness #2 (Sister Who Removed Contacts)  (Read 7228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Screamin Jay

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Witness #2 (Sister Who Removed Contacts)
« on: July 04, 2012, 11:38:30 PM »
Here are highlights of witness #2's testimonies:
W#2 is sister to W#1
(this part was only in her initial statement. Was looking out the kitchen window, saw two guys running, one in front one behind, had something on the stove, went by the sliding glass door, saw a fist fight, someone was hitting someone, went back to kitchen to turn the stove off, heard "No, no", heard the shot, )
5pm was sitting on her back patio reading for 1 1/2 hours before it happened
6:30 went inside
in upstairs bathroom took out contacts, did not put her glasses on
walked into the back bedroom
threw something in a chair and picked something else up
glanced out the window,heard two guys 10 feet apart coming north running past her house toward to "T" , (later she said it might have only been one person running)
turned around, walked out of the room
from upstairs hallway heard a male voice say "No", "No" or "Yo" (first thing she heard)
continued into the front bedroom
15 seconds after the glance at the running she heard the shot
thought the shot might have come from the front of the house. looked out the front window first.
------------------------------------------------
This witness is a little sketchy. She first thought she was downstairs during the event. Later her sister must have reminded her she was actually upstairs. She forgot to tell us she did not have her contacts or glasses when she glanced out. She changed from two people running to possibly only one.
Still this witness is helpful. By the time she testifies in court I'm sure the lawyers will be able to help her remember better.
To understand the full extent of what this and all witnesses said, you must listen and read their testimonies in their own words. My highlights are for the purpose of starting discussion.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 10:17:59 PM by TalkLeft »

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2012, 11:46:42 PM »
15 seconds after the glance at the running she heard the shot

The problem with that statement is we have at least three witnesses - W6, W1 (her sister) and W16 - that saw the two near W6s patio at that time. W14 was looking around the same time frame - though I don't recall him seeing W6 poking his head out so we don't have a time stamp for his recollection.

Offline Screamin Jay

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2012, 07:45:37 AM »
Times seem to telescope under stress. They can be longer or shorter than remembered. An open question might be who, if not GZ or TM, might have been running north past this lady's house while these two were locked in a horizontal hand struggle. Austin? Frank? She may not be called to testify.
Some of the times being thrown out may turn out wrong. As these witnesses continue to explain things to me I'm thinking some things started earlier and carried on longer than I originally figured.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2012, 11:04:25 AM »
Initially I thought this would be the toughest witness for the defense, but her change in testimony as well as contradiction with other witness statements and facts leave me believing she is neutral.  If the prosecutor could get her to go back to her full first statement, then it could be helpful to them, but she's been all over the map with her statements that she's probably not going to be useful to either side. 

She was sitting outside from 5:00 to 6:30, so was she asked if she saw anyone matching Martins description passing by as she was reading during this time?

Offline willisnewton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2012, 09:41:55 PM »
BdlR claimed in both bond hearings that the state had a witness to a "foot chase."  Is this W2?  At the second bond hearing he said it was witnesses, plural to a chase.  Is DeeDee a witness to a chase? 

What of W4, 7 and 10?  (We have no info on their testimony at present) Are they foot chase witnesses?  Is BdlR bluffing?  It's a heck of a bluff for GZ to call, because if he DOES have credible witnesses to a foot chase, GZ's story falls apart. 

Is W2 a credible witnes to a foot chase?  Hard to say, and it depends on what she's willing to do if asked to testify.  She could be played the tape where she claims to have seen a foot chase and asked if she now recants this idea, but the prosecution better be sure of her answer in advance if they call her. 

No matter who chased whom, it's not really GZ's version of events, is it?  GZ claims to cover the distance from where he was punched to where he fell by "stumbling" and trying to push TM away before either falling of his own accord or being pushed by TM.  Not a lot of room in there for a foot chase. 

If her glance was what she once claimed it was, she may be the earliest eyewitness to what happened.  But I'd hate to be a prosecutor who had to hang my case on the likes of a witness such as her. 


Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2012, 05:16:57 PM »

Is W2 a credible witness to a foot chase? 

Answer is an easy "no" since she retracted it and said she only got a glance, she didn't have her contacts in and she heard ,more than saw, anything. It was Serino who made up the distances in her second interview. And her last two interviews leave no room for doubt she does not believe she saw a  chase.

Offline Screamin Jay

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2012, 07:04:29 PM »
What happens in court when witnesses' testimony contradicts? There were others looking out at this time. Anybody else see someone running north? W14 and W19 were out with their dogs. Austin was chasing his.
W4, W7, and W10 were interviewed by Sanford police that night. They have not been released yet.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2012, 09:57:57 AM »
I find it hard to believe that she would ever be called to the stand in support for the prosecution.  I think she would get completely discredited on cross. 

The one thing that has never changed is that she could not tell if it were a man, woman or child moving past her limited field of vision.  She no single identifying factor as to clothing to help determine who was chasing whom.

Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2012, 06:44:41 AM »


Her testimony is pretty much useless. I believe the prosecution thought they had something with her testimony but since she changed it her testimony is pretty much worthless. The one figure she saw/heard running could have been the witness that ran after his dog or even Santa Claus as far as she knows.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Witness #2 (Sister Who Removed Contacts)
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2012, 12:23:51 AM »
I think this is the back of the sisters' house. How could they have seen anything through that screened in "sunroom" they call a porch?



Larger view here.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 12:28:41 AM by TalkLeft »

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2012, 12:29:43 AM »

Her testimony is pretty much useless. I believe the prosecution thought they had something with her testimony but since she changed it her testimony is pretty much worthless. The one figure she saw/heard running could have been the witness that ran after his dog or even Santa Claus as far as she knows.

Perhaps it was one man chasing , zen, Martin?

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2012, 12:35:13 AM »

Her testimony is pretty much useless. I believe the prosecution thought they had something with her testimony but since she changed it her testimony is pretty much worthless. The one figure she saw/heard running could have been the witness that ran after his dog or even Santa Claus as far as she knows.

It seems she was re-interviewed by the states' attorney and we don't have good details of she said in that interview. From my post on missing discovery, this is missiing:

Quote
Audio recordings of 3/26 interview by state's attorney investigator O'Steen and John Guy of W1 or W2 (one of the sisters who saw a glance of one or two people running).  Witness is now saying she saw people running left to right (which from her house would be south to north.) De la Rionda keeps referring to this, yet the only audio statements provided are those by SPD and FDLE (3/1, 3/9, 3/20)  and in the 3/20 interviews they retracted this. What happened in one week to make one of them change their mind, and why don't we have the actual interview? (p. 29 of 284 page discovery)

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2 (Sister Who Removed Contacts)
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2012, 01:31:40 AM »
Whenever this witness is mentioned I can't help but think of 12 Angry Men and how the jurors deduced that a key witness could not have actually witnessed the identity of the alleged murderer because she was not wearing her glasses at the time she witnessed the killing.

I guess if this makes it to trial it will be 6 Angry People.


Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2012, 01:46:18 AM »
It seems she was re-interviewed by the states' attorney and we don't have good details of she said in that interview. From my post on missing discovery, this is missiing:

I didn't realize they had interviewed her again. Thanks for the info. It will be something to watch for.

Offline DiwataMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #2 (Sister Who Removed Contacts)
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2013, 01:35:27 PM »
I find this witness fascinating. The chase thing with her seems obvious that the prosecutor would not want to use her in court but they mentioned her a couple of times now in the hearings and they went back to interview her it seems to specifically ask that she actually saw "shadows", plural, running from left to right.

One thing I haven't seen discussed about her is why didn't she hear the screaming and yells that went on for at least 45 seconds. She said she had the windows open, heard footsteps when she was in that back room, walked into the hallway and heard someone yell "yo or no", reached the room on the other side and heard the gunshot which she believed to be about 15 seconds in between the yo or no to the shot.

I also think her location is a good candidate for the eight year old female that was anonymously reported as being a witness even though W2 says the kids were upstairs and W1 says they didn't see anything. W1&2 lived in a unit with a screened in porch. There were kids at that unit at the time. And by my reading of the report investigators did not specifically ask W1 or W2 or the kids, they just say W1&2 previously provided statements and even though the kids were passively mentioned in those previously provided statements they weren't specifically asked.

If I had to speculate I think the kids were upstairs looking out the back window. W2 went inside after reading to help W1 with dinner. They heard the yelling outside and upon looking, put it together there was trouble, W2's parental protective instincts kick in and runs upstairs to get check on the kids, sees them looking out the back window and takes them to their room in the front away from danger. This is why W2 is so sketchy on the "chase" details, because she is trying to figure out and tell investigators what the kids saw, not her. Days, perhaps weeks go by and the neighborhood kids and other people get to talking and it gets around to an adult that one of the kids saw it and so they report it.

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1112/discovery9/fdle_reports_march.pdf

 

Site Meter
click
tracking