Author Topic: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery  (Read 16965 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2012, 04:59:47 PM »
It's like watching a hearing with your drunk Uncle Cleatus.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2012, 05:00:56 PM »
I did hear one thing that intrigued me in O'Mara's press conference at about 3:45, I think I heard, "or some prior motion that addresses legitimacy of the charges".  This is the first hint I have heard that O'Mara is considering challenging the APC itself before the immunity hearing.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2012, 05:10:33 PM »
It's like watching a hearing with your drunk Uncle Cleatus.

I was highly entertained by the running commentary, FWIW.

Crump's appearance was illuminating.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2012, 05:23:34 PM »
Crump's appearance was illuminating.

My favorite was Judge Nelson expressing reticence in shoving Crump into the spotlight. I guess she really doesn't pay attention to media.

BTW, is it common for a criminal judge to shy away from the police blotter? It seems sensible, in a way.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2012, 05:29:35 PM »
My favorite was Judge Nelson expressing reticence in shoving Crump into the spotlight. I guess she really doesn't pay attention to media.

She didn't mind having him in the spotlight.  She just wanted to move things along.  She said that O'Mara may depose Crump, and she gave Crump 10 days to come up with a list of people present during the DeeDee telephone interview.  She also did a very nice job eliciting how Crump recorded the call, after his non-responsive answer.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2012, 06:29:09 PM »
I was highly entertained by the running commentary, FWIW.

Crump's appearance was illuminating.

Why did Crump lie to the judge about recording on his phone? In his press conference video you can clearly see him using a dedicated recorder. I don't know if it's one of them fancy state of the art FBI recorders but it sure sounds clear enough even through the tiny speaker held up to the microphone.

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/lawyer-presser-pt-2-in-trayvon-martin-case/vGcFM/

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2012, 02:27:33 AM »
In his press conference video you can clearly see him using a dedicated recorder.

Thanks for linking this.

I think you are right about the recorder. It looks a lot like a phone, but it doesn't seem to have a phone-style keypad.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2012, 02:30:26 AM »
I did hear one thing that intrigued me in O'Mara's press conference at about 3:45, I think I heard, "or some prior motion that addresses legitimacy of the charges".  This is the first hint I have heard that O'Mara is considering challenging the APC itself before the immunity hearing.

Please, oh God please, never again link to a video by stateoftheinternet. He edits and manipulates the content of his videos.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2012, 04:33:05 AM »
She didn't mind having him in the spotlight.  She just wanted to move things along.  She said that O'Mara may depose Crump, and she gave Crump 10 days to come up with a list of people present during the DeeDee telephone interview.  She also did a very nice job eliciting how Crump recorded the call, after his non-responsive answer.

I actually liked this judge.  I thought she was very no nonsense about the whole thing and she didn't have a problem moving things forward.

I was listening to it live on the computer and I thought I heard her say, after MOM complained that Crump wasn't on the Witness List for deposition purposes, that she made Crump a witness so that O'Mara could proceed with his deposition regarding how the Interview with W8 occurred and the chain of evidence.

Paraphrasing it as close as I remember it:  "So the recording went from Crump to the FBI to the FDLE to the SAO.  There is your chain of evidence."  I am probably wrong but I thought I remembered Crump saying that he turned the tape over to the DOJ, not the FBI, since the family had "lost faith" in the SPD. 

I am trying to find a link to it but I think I need fresher eyes in the morning.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #39 on: October 20, 2012, 04:45:33 AM »
O'Mara . . . noted that so far there is no evidence of animus or anger on Zimmerman's part

'A*holes' and 'f*ing punks' are evidence of animus where I come from.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #40 on: October 20, 2012, 05:02:39 AM »
Paraphrasing it as close as I remember it:  "So the recording went from Crump to the FBI to the FDLE to the SAO.  There is your chain of evidence." 

That's not a chain of custody.

Wikipedia
Quote
An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence. Documentation should include the conditions under which the evidence is gathered, the identity of all evidence handlers, duration of evidence custody, security conditions while handling or storing the evidence, and the manner in which evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time such a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step).

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #41 on: October 20, 2012, 06:34:01 AM »
'A*holes' and 'f*ing punks' are evidence of animus where I come from.

Where I come from, "it depends."  I have a generalized animus toward burglars, but until I know a person is a burglar, I won't have animus toward that person for being a burglar.  What O'Mara is saying is that the state hasn't disclosed any evidence that Zimmerman had animus against Martin.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #42 on: October 20, 2012, 07:40:39 AM »
Please, oh God please, never again link to a video by stateoftheinternet. He edits and manipulates the content of his videos.

Any non adulterated videos available?  I doubt that the O'Mara quote I gave was tampered with.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #43 on: October 20, 2012, 09:39:57 AM »
Where I come from, "it depends."  I have a generalized animus toward burglars, but until I know a person is a burglar, I won't have animus toward that person for being a burglar.  What O'Mara is saying is that the state hasn't disclosed any evidence that Zimmerman had animus against Martin.

For me, it is the fact that they are pluralized.  That makes it a generality.  It is not directed at Martin, neither personally nor directly. 

The words didn't seem to be spoken angrily as much as it seems to be expressing frustration.  He wasn't yelling.  He wasn't even speaking loudly.


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #44 on: October 20, 2012, 11:30:24 AM »
I have a generalized animus toward burglars, but until I know a person is a burglar, I won't have animus toward that person for being a burglar.

The hostile remarks were clearly directed at Martin. They suggest that Zimmerman had concluded that Martin was a burglar.

Quote
What O'Mara is saying is that the state hasn't disclosed any evidence that Zimmerman had animus against Martin.

I'm not sure what 'the state' means in this context. The police call was disclosed by the city of Sanford. What difference does it make who disclosed it?

The hostile remarks were mentioned in the charging affidavit.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking