Author Topic: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case  (Read 12498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« on: March 11, 2013, 06:27:47 AM »
The title is set to be: “If I Had A Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman.”

From his website and previous books, I think his point of view is very similar to that of the CTH.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2013, 06:45:25 AM »
Coincidentally, I just read a recent post by Cashill.

Quote
The major media, as is their custom with contrary facts, chose not to look in places they might find them.

Then he cheerfully disregards any facts inconvenient for Zimmerman, such as W-6 recanting his 'MMA' statement. 

Cashill is a hack, not worth attention in my opinion.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2013, 07:18:10 AM »
I agree about Cahill.  An objective author would also discuss how Zimmerman's statements to investigators and TV hosts complicate his defense.

Offline Philly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2013, 09:53:05 AM »
Coincidentally, I just read a recent post by Cashill.

Then he cheerfully disregards any facts inconvenient for Zimmerman, such as W-6 recanting his 'MMA' statement. 

From W-6's follow-up interview:
"in my first statement that I made, I did say that he was hitting him from on top, um, because that's what it looked like. I mean he could have still been hitting him, or he could have been trying to hold him down, you know."

I think it's a bit stretch to throw the loaded word "recanted" at his testimony.  John changed from saying TM was punching GZ to saying it looked like TM was hitting GZ.  To me, that's a clarification/reduction in confidence, not a denial.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2013, 10:12:20 AM »
I think it's a bit stretch to throw the loaded word "recanted" at his testimony. 

It's not a loaded word. It's an accurate description.

Offline who007

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2013, 10:15:56 AM »
From W-6's follow-up interview:
"in my first statement that I made, I did say that he was hitting him from on top, um, because that's what it looked like. I mean he could have still been hitting him, or he could have been trying to hold him down, you know."

I think it's a bit stretch to throw the loaded word "recanted" at his testimony.  John changed from saying TM was punching GZ to saying it looked like TM was hitting GZ.  To me, that's a clarification/reduction in confidence, not a denial.
There is nearly an hour long tape of "John" going over and over it again with law enforcement.  Have you listened to it?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2013, 10:44:54 AM »
not a denial.

I checked my dictionary, Webster's Third International, 2002, and it confirms that 'recant' does not imply 'deny'. The operative words in the definition are 'withdraw' and 'repudiate'.

Offline Kyreth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2013, 10:54:11 AM »
W-6 explains why he had that impression that he shared, and admits he's not positive but still seems to have the opinion that there was punching and George screaming.

I wouldn't call that "withdrawn".

Offline Kyreth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2013, 11:01:25 AM »
In fact, we don't know what W6 said in his deposition; after knowing that George had the bloody face and head, in light of what he saw he might be positive now that what he saw was punching.

And an analogy to explain the reasoning behind that:

A witness sees someone fire a gun, and someone a hundred feet away fall to the ground, and says "OMG, he shot him!"

When asked about it later he says "I saw the gun fired and I saw the guy drop...but I didn't see the bullet him him, so I'm not sure...the guy could have just ducked and hit the ground out of fear."

How sure would he be that the shooter shot the guy once he finds out later there was a bullet hole in him?

During the 2nd bond hearing, O'Mara had W6 ready to testify at the hearing in case his written statement was rejected, so the Defense had already talked to him at that point...and after talking to W6, O'Mara was quite confident with using W6's claim that there was MMA style punching.  So, I expect that once we hear from W6 again, he'll be pretty confident that he saw George getting punched.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2013, 11:05:26 AM »
"in my first statement that I made, I did say that he was hitting him from on top, um, because that's what it looked like. I mean he could have still been hitting him, or he could have been trying to hold him down, you know."

"I mean he could have been" doing whatever verb  but it still looked to him like GZ was getting struck from on top by TM.

I don't think he diminished what he said he saw. 

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2013, 11:18:17 AM »
My summary of the last W #6 interview:
  • Diagrams that within the 10 seconds he was watching through his open patio door, the combatants moved from his lawn to the concrete dog walk.  It both started and ended with Martin on his knees straddling Zimmerman who was on his back.  Originally, Martin was facing the houses across the way while Zimmerman was facing Witness # 6 (and the sky, one would presume).  It ended up on the concrete with Martin facing north.
  • Martin appeared to have the advantage throughout.  He could not say if Martin was raining down blows on Zimmerman MMA style or just trying to restrain Zimmerman's arms.
  • Heard a loud yell for Help from one of the combatants while they were on the grass.  Thinks it came from Zimmerman since it didn't have any echo which he would expect if Martin was yelling.
  • Told them to cut it out and he was calling 911.  Then he closed and locked the patio door and went upstairs to call 911.  Heard the shot before he connected.

I think this, along with Zimmerman's injuries, is enough to establish reasonable doubt in Zimmerman's favor.  After the move to the concrete, Zimmerman had a reasonable expectation of serious harm to himself.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 11:26:58 AM by RickyJim »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2013, 11:21:13 AM »
People can say black is white until the cows come home. Anyone who cares can listen to the recordings and decide for themselves.

What's funny, is that I hear the same nonsense from the 'other side', about W-2.

W-6 recanted 'raining down blows MMA style'.

W-2 recanted 'two guys running' and 'fistfight'.

If anyone doesn't like it, tough.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2013, 11:35:43 AM »
W6 said TM's back was to him at first observance, which would mean he was shielding some activity.  I think his first statement was simply what he saw looked like the guy on top was putting a beating on the guy on the bottom.  In a later interview, he was questioned about whether he could hear fist hitting face, which is when he recanted.  I gather his recanting was that he couldn't see contact due to conditions, but that his initial observation was accurate (guy on top was hitting or physically restraining guy on the bottom).  W-2 went from being in one area of the house seeing 2 guys in a chase x feet apart to being in a different part of the house with her contacts out and not sure she saw anything other than some shadows.  I'm not sure their change in testimony is a fair comparison.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2013, 11:43:15 AM »
During the 2nd bond hearing, O'Mara had W6 ready to testify at the hearing in case his written statement was rejected, so the Defense had already talked to him at that point . . . and after talking to W6, O'Mara was quite confident with using W6's claim that there was MMA style punching.  So, I expect that once we hear from W6 again, he'll be pretty confident that he saw George getting punched.

Response on W-6 thread.

I suggest/request that others do the same. The W-6 discussion has left Mr. Cashill behind. It isn't on topic here.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2013, 11:53:00 AM »
I'm not sure their change in testimony is a fair comparison.

Response on W-6 thread.


 

Site Meter
click
tracking