Author Topic: Witness 6 - "John"  (Read 24225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #60 on: March 11, 2013, 01:25:50 PM »
W6 will quite likely go with his cautious testimony on direct (assuming he's called by the state). On cross, the defense will be able to press him on whether his initial impression, when the incident was fresh in his mind, might be more accurate than his later version, and whether the things he heard in between the first and the later interviews may have influenced his memory of the event. Nothing in that approach draws into question W6's credibility, since it depends on aspects of memory most jurors understand through their own experience. Anyone who's ever heard a witness rehabilitated on redirect should know that what he told the state investigators may not be the final version left with the jury.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #61 on: March 11, 2013, 01:42:48 PM »
W6 will quite likely go with his cautious testimony on direct (assuming he's called by the state). On cross, the defense will be able to press him on whether his initial impression, when the incident was fresh in his mind, might be more accurate than his later version, and whether the things he heard in between the first and the later interviews may have influenced his memory of the event. Nothing in that approach draws into question W6's credibility, since it depends on aspects of memory most jurors understand through their own experience. Anyone who's ever heard a witness rehabilitated on redirect should know that what he told the state investigators may not be the final version left with the jury.
I think this is unnecessary.  I posted today, under the Cahill thread, a review of W6's FDLE interview with the conclusion that is enough for reasonable doubt.  I think the defense's task is to get the focus away from both Zimmerman's prior statements (by not calling him) and DeeDee and focus on the exculpatory stuff from W6 and other witnesses who will testify about Z's injuries.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #62 on: March 11, 2013, 01:56:21 PM »
I think this is unnecessary.

Perhaps unnecessary, but the defense has little to lose and much to gain by pointing out the certainty of W6's interpretation when the events were still fresh in his mind. At worst, the jury accepts W6's later, cautious, interpretation. At best, the jury applies the usual assumption that recollections nearest the event are the most reliable. Anything in between is better that the version the state will present on direct. 

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #63 on: March 11, 2013, 02:04:05 PM »
Sorry MJW but I don't agree at all.  What can W6 say?  "I really did see Martin rain down blows".  "I really did see Zimmerman move his mouth and scream"  That would really send his credibility up the creek.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #64 on: March 11, 2013, 02:26:36 PM »
I would suggest the defense should ask him to demonstrate the the activity he witnessed.   

Offline AghastInFL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #65 on: March 11, 2013, 02:54:00 PM »
I would suggest the defense should ask him to demonstrate the the activity he witnessed.
Agreed this war or words and subjective interpretation can be laid aside with a simple visual.

Offline redstripe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #66 on: March 11, 2013, 04:21:49 PM »
You mean when he described the struggle as "wrestling" and mentioned nothing about punches? (I.e., before he had the opportunity to be 'coached'?

Was there an extensive interview that took place before the sanford police recording or just a brief statement?  It seems like the mention of punches showed up the first time he really had a chance to elaborate on what he saw and then he withdrew more toward his preliminary statement after the whole media scandal exploded.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #67 on: March 11, 2013, 04:49:37 PM »
You mean when he described the struggle as "wrestling" and mentioned nothing about punches? (I.e., before he had the opportunity to be 'coached'?

This Fox news clip contains an interview with #6 the day after the shooting. He mentions the guy beating up the other guy being the one on the grass after the shot. About 0:52 in the clip. But watch the whole thing to get all the statements from #6 during the clip. I vaguely recall there was more to this interview where #6 talks about MMA but can't find it offhand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF83Dv6H0cA

EDIT: Clearer video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w47eL_jTieI
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 04:53:16 PM by FromBelow »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #68 on: March 11, 2013, 05:11:47 PM »
I vaguely recall there was more to this interview where #6 talks about MMA but can't find it offhand.
That was the interview conducted by Serino on 2/26.  It is called the first interview here.

Offline whonoze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #69 on: March 11, 2013, 05:19:17 PM »
Was there an extensive interview that took place before the sanford police recording or just a brief statement?

W6 said only "wrestling" in his 911 call. The mention of punches from a "strattle" position first appears in the written statement taken by Ofc. Ricardo Ayala on 2/26. This occurred before Chris Serino arrived on the scene. We have no indication of how long Ayala took in getting John's statement, whether he just gave John a piece of paper and asked him to "write what you saw," or whether he asked John a series of questions first. The latter seems more likely IMHO, in that the cops had a motive to try to figure out what had happened ASAP. My hypothesis is that Timothy Smith informed Ayala of the gist of Zimmerman's version of event, Ayala asked John leading questions accordingly, and John followed those suggestions out of a desire to be cooperative with LE. In short, Smith believed Zimmermsan, Ayala believed Smith, and John believed Ayala. (That is, unlike some, I do not see John as an active agent in some sort of pro-GZ conspiracy.)

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #70 on: March 11, 2013, 05:21:02 PM »
That was the interview conducted by Serino on 2/26.  It is called the first interview here.

Thank you. I was misremembering. He mentions it the night of the shooting, apparently at the scene, to Serino. Out of curiosity has whonoze gotten anything factually right so far?

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #71 on: March 11, 2013, 05:23:40 PM »
W6 said only "wrestling" in his 911 call. The mention of punches from a "strattle" position first appears in the written statement taken by Ofc. Ricardo Ayala on 2/26. This occurred before Chris Serino arrived on the scene. We have no indication of how long Ayala took in getting John's statement, whether he just gave John a piece of paper and asked him to "write what you saw," or whether he asked John a series of questions first. The latter seems more likely IMHO, in that the cops had a motive to try to figure out what had happened ASAP. My hypothesis is that Timothy Smith informed Ayala of the gist of Zimmerman's version of event, Ayala asked John leading questions accordingly, and John followed those suggestions out of a desire to be cooperative with LE. In short, Smith believed Zimmermsan, Ayala believed Smith, and John believed Ayala. (That is, unlike some, I do not see John as an active agent in some sort of pro-GZ conspiracy.)

Maybe aliens coached #6 before anyone else got to him. Unless you have evidence he was coached it never happened. Do you have any such evidence?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2013, 06:26:42 PM »
The evidence is that he dramatically changed his account between the 911 call and his first written statement. He told the 911 operator 'two guys are wrestling' in his backyard. Who would use this language after witnessing a one-sided beat-down, as opposed to 'a guy's getting a beating in my backyard' or something like that?
The 911 was a quick call and was mostly devoted to describing what he was seeing after the shot.  Notice he only saw one flashlight at this point.  He wasn't asked who was winning the fight before the shot and why should he think he had to tell the operator that?  This was not meant to be a description of the entire incident like his subsequent reports and interviews.  Better luck next time friend.  :-X

Offline Kyreth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #73 on: March 11, 2013, 06:28:33 PM »
Maybe aliens coached #6 before anyone else got to him. Unless you have evidence he was coached it never happened. Do you have any such evidence?

Yeah, nothing he says is actually evidence of anything.  Claiming that hurried statements on a 911 call lack the detail given by a statement after the fact when the pressure is off is hardly a hit to one's credibility when the later statements don't contradict the 911 call.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness 6 - "John"
« Reply #74 on: March 11, 2013, 06:29:31 PM »
@whonoze

How is any of that evidence he was coached? In the 911 call his priority was to report the shot, not go into detail about what he observed prior to it. He was also extremely distracted by the current events he was observing and reporting those to the 911 operator. His first opportunity to elaborate on what he saw prior to the shot was when he was first interviewed that night.

If anything it was media or the state that resulted in his being uncertain in the final interview.

I know your goal is to try and somehow impeach John because you know how damaging he is to the state's case, but trying to compare DD's lie to John becoming uncertain over time is absolutely ridiculous.

Depositions are private. What more did you expect to hear from the defense about him after his deposition?

EDIT: RickyJim beat me to it. My defense is his post was shorter.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 06:31:15 PM by FromBelow »

 

Site Meter
click
tracking