Author Topic: Missing Discovery  (Read 16177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2012, 03:43:34 AM »
The actual timestamps for the various 911 calls would be very helpful in establishing a timeline for events.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2012, 02:00:15 PM »
What I'd love to see are accurate to the second records for Trayvon's calls and for the young lady's calls (and if they don't match I'll be reminded of the apocryphal Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times"), as well as exact times and text of text messages, and all of George's to the second phone records as well, plus texts, if any.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2012, 07:22:28 AM »
Was there ever an actual bond application?  The only thing I had ever seen is that Jail Intake form, filled out by the interviewer and signed by George Zimmerman.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2012, 08:51:39 PM »
I was reading the transcript of W2 (John) interview with John Bachelor.  He also drew a diagram as to the positions and movements of GZ and TM.  He labeled it 1 and 2, using his house for a reference point. 

So where is that diagram?

 
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/writ/appendix_1.pdf  (page 37)

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2012, 09:00:13 PM »
I was reading the transcript of W2 (John) interview with John Bachelor.  He also drew a diagram as to the positions and movements of GZ and TM.  He labeled it 1 and 2, using his house for a reference point. 
So where is that diagram? http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/writ/appendix_1.pdf  (page 37)

Thanks, I forgot that one and it's really one I'd like to see too. I'm going to add it to the main list I started (as well as some others commenters here have pointed out.)

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2012, 09:04:30 PM »
I was reading the transcript of W2 (John) interview with John Bachelor.  He also drew a diagram as to the positions and movements of GZ and TM.  He labeled it 1 and 2, using his house for a reference point. 

So where is that diagram?

 
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/writ/appendix_1.pdf  (page 37)

Good catch.

But John is W-6. W-2 is the lady who glanced out the window without her contacts.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2012, 10:12:18 PM »
Good catch.

But John is W-6. W-2 is the lady who glanced out the window without her contacts.

I knew that...  I was just seeing if you were on your toes tonite!  LOL!  He was the second person interviewed or something like that.  I picked it up wrong.  Seriously, I just downloaded Appendix 3 and my computer froze up.  I was up to about page 285 or so.  I really need a different computer. 

((tears out hair))

Do you remember if it was the June 1 hearing that de la Rionda admitted that TM struck GZ.  I remember he was having a hissy-fit at the time and said it kind of in passing.  Maybe towards the end of the hearing?  That is what I am trying to find.  I might be remembering incorrectly but he said something to that effect and I remember thinking at the time that I was willing to bet he wished he hadn't said that out loud.

I blame old age and lack of medications....

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2012, 12:03:36 AM »
List of things I am finding, let's add one more.

Appendix 2 page 64

There is a series of composites that MOM is admitting into evidence.  In Composite 2, he describes the photos of GZ's injuries.  He includes the well known ABC shot, and the evidence pictures taken at the station.

There is a third composite that he describes on pg 64 at the very top of the page.

Quote
This is actually my third exhibit that I would like you to consider which is a cell phone video that was taken by the witness at the scene and directly after the injury.  It is significant to the extent that it shows the injuries to my client's nose and the blood around the nose and mouth. 

The State didn't object because they had already seen it.

WTH?  What video? 

The part that jumps out is that there is a video record of the injuries and blood on GZs face.  The one witness had taken three pictures with his iPhone, GZ's head, TM's body in situ, and the flashlight.   I remember the grainy B/W that was taken while GZ was in the patrol car but that was a still and he had already been cleaned up by EMT's, IIRC.  The officer forgot he had taken the picture or something.  I remember it didn't get turned in right away but a few days later.

Is the witness a civilian or LE?  Is the grainy shot of GZ in the back of a patrol car taken as a still from a video?  Is he mischaracterizing a photo as a video?

Curious...

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2012, 12:43:57 AM »
  Is he mischaracterizing a photo as a video?

If I had to guess, I'd go with that.

Did he say the word more than once?

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2012, 01:15:15 AM »
If I had to guess, I'd go with that.

Did he say the word more than once?

Don West took over the proceedings with that EMT, Kevin O'Rourke.  He also refers to Composite 3 and shows Kevin a photo.  I assume it is the one from the patrol car.  That is when I started wondering if it is a mistaken characterization.  But who would confuse a video with a still?  It doesn't make sense to me.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2012, 01:25:07 AM »
But who would confuse a video with a still? 

Slip of the tongue. It's the kind of mistake anyone might make, especially if they spend the whole day talking.

I recall O'Mara getting at least one of the witness numbers wrong.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2012, 04:10:36 AM »
List of things I am finding, let's add one more.

Appendix 2 page 64

There is a series of composites that MOM is admitting into evidence.  In Composite 2, he describes the photos of GZ's injuries.  He includes the well known ABC shot, and the evidence pictures taken at the station.

There is a third composite that he describes on pg 64 at the very top of the page.

The State didn't object because they had already seen it.

WTH?  What video? 

The part that jumps out is that there is a video record of the injuries and blood on GZs face.  The one witness had taken three pictures with his iPhone, GZ's head, TM's body in situ, and the flashlight.   I remember the grainy B/W that was taken while GZ was in the patrol car but that was a still and he had already been cleaned up by EMT's, IIRC.  The officer forgot he had taken the picture or something.  I remember it didn't get turned in right away but a few days later.

Is the witness a civilian or LE?  Is the grainy shot of GZ in the back of a patrol car taken as a still from a video?  Is he mischaracterizing a photo as a video?

Curious...

"The part that jumps out is that there is a video record of the injuries and blood on GZs face. "

Perhaps it would be better to refer to that as a photographic record (unless there's actual motion capturing video of which I'm completely unaware).

I think it was W13 who was putting together furniture who comes out and talks ammo size and uses his iPhone to get the shot of the back of Zimmerman's head while Zimmerman is on the phone with someone, a shot of Trayvon's possibly not yet dead but neither of them could be bothered to call an ambulance body, and a shot of the larger flashlight which was found near the body.

Then Smith comes up and he has to back off.

Later a police officer (not among the very first to arrive) uses his own cell phone to take the picture of Zimmerman in the back of the police car and a picture of the body (which by then had already been turned over by the second and third officers to arrive).

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2012, 04:14:57 AM »
I knew that...  I was just seeing if you were on your toes tonite!  LOL!  He was the second person interviewed or something like that.  I picked it up wrong.  Seriously, I just downloaded Appendix 3 and my computer froze up.  I was up to about page 285 or so.  I really need a different computer. 

((tears out hair))

Do you remember if it was the June 1 hearing that de la Rionda admitted that TM struck GZ.  I remember he was having a hissy-fit at the time and said it kind of in passing.  Maybe towards the end of the hearing?  That is what I am trying to find.  I might be remembering incorrectly but he said something to that effect and I remember thinking at the time that I was willing to bet he wished he hadn't said that out loud.

I blame old age and lack of medications....

Jeralyn included the line in a post a while back, but I haven't been able to find it recently, but at some point (and I think it was the original bond hearing with half the Zimmerman family on the phone) BdlR says that Martin struck Zimmmerman "at some point".

Contrary to what some, even more elsewhere than here, like to believe, this is not the same as saying Martin struck first, or Martin attacked.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2012, 04:16:59 AM »
Speaking of the picture of the back of GZ's head, aren't there supposed to be others the same witness took? I seem to recall mention of more of them. Were they released? I guess the body was another, but I'd be clicking away. I'm guessing there are actually quite a few more.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 04:19:16 AM by FromBelow »

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Missing Discovery
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2012, 04:25:16 AM »
Do you remember if it was the June 1 hearing that de la Rionda admitted that TM struck GZ.  I remember he was having a hissy-fit at the time and said it kind of in passing.  Maybe towards the end of the hearing?  That is what I am trying to find.  I might be remembering incorrectly but he said something to that effect and I remember thinking at the time that I was willing to bet he wished he hadn't said that out loud.

I blame old age and lack of medications....

"And at some point the victim does hit him." 2:22 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjX0bQR5INg&feature=youtu.be

 

Site Meter
click
tracking