Author Topic: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery  (Read 7114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2013, 03:10:15 PM »
But leftwig's question remains: if the button were pinned on the hoodie so near the bullet entry hole, why wasn't it tested for blood and powder residue?

We don't know that it wasn't. If it wasn't, 'because it was in a pocket', is not a plausible explanation in my opinion.

Just because a 'question remains', doesn't mean every conceivable answer to that question is plausible.


Offline DiwataMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2013, 03:15:47 PM »
I don't think the watch was tested, but the watch wasn't a few inches from the bullet hole. I also don't understand why the button would be removed at the scene, except it it were necessary to aid the attempted resuscitation. And it we're, I think that that, being something out of the ordinary, would be mentioned in a report.

I'm not sure what you mean then as I was just bringing up another example. The watch didn't need to be next to the bullet hole to justify testing it so I'm missing your point there I guess. Maybe they remove everything before going to the ME? I don't know but I'm sure there's a simple explanation.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2013, 03:16:20 PM »
We don't know that it wasn't. If it wasn't, 'because it was in a pocket', is not a plausible explanation in my opinion.

Just because a 'question remains', doesn't mean every conceivable answer to that question is plausible.

If it were tested, the report should be in the discovery.

That it could have been in his pocket doesn't strike me as highly improbable.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 03:17:53 PM by MJW »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2013, 03:19:33 PM »
I'm not sure what you mean then as I was just bringing up another example. The watch didn't need to be next to the bullet hole to justify testing it so I'm missing your point there I guess. Maybe they remove everything before going to the ME? I don't know but I'm sure there's a simple explanation.

I just mean that while it may have been desirable to test the watch, it almost seems incredible that they wouldn't have tested the button.

Offline DiwataMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2013, 03:22:59 PM »
I just mean that while it may have been desirable to test the watch, it almost seems incredible that they wouldn't have tested the button.

I'm not sure it's competitive that way. How do you weigh the difference really? What about them having the ability to find W8 and didn't, I mean if Crump can do it...lolz.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2013, 03:26:01 PM »
What about them having the ability to find W8 and didn't, I mean if Crump can do it...lolz.

Crump had the co-operation of a witness who was stonewalling the SPD, on Crump's advice.

Offline DiwataMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2013, 03:33:15 PM »
Crump had the co-operation of a witness who was stonewalling the SPD, on Crump's advice.

Couldn't they have subpenaed T-Mobile for the records at least to check for calls? Taken it to cellebrite if need be? I'll have to go back and look but I wonder what info they did get off of it even though it was pattern locked, if that included the last few calls or so then that just makes their job easier regarding this aspect anyway.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2013, 03:41:36 PM »
Couldn't they have subpenaed T-Mobile for the records at least to check for calls?

My hazy recollection is that they asked for a subpoena at some point, but it hadn't been granted by the time they turned the case over to Wolfinger's office and the FDLE.

Offline DiwataMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2013, 03:45:13 PM »
My hazy recollection is that they asked for a subpoena at some point, but it hadn't been granted by the time they turned the case over to Wolfinger's office and the FDLE.

I wish we had the whole SPD file, that would help a bit. Someone convince O'Mara to post that. Don't you think T-Mobile might just help in this regard though? I mean they can if they wanted just give the cops basic call info, number/times, for that day if they asked couldn't they?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2013, 06:59:28 PM »
Ayala reportedly said the gunshot wound was under the button (2/284).

I still don't understand why Ayala would have hallucinated this, when he had no way of knowing there was such a button in one of Martin's pockets.

The interview was conducted on April 2, 2012 -- over a month later. Why assume he hallucinated when we could assume he misremembered? By that time, everyone had heard the NEN call where GZ said TM was wearing the button. Why was the photo button specifically mentioned in that very brief interview summary? For all we know, Gilbreath reminded Ayala of the button, and Ayala said the gunshot wound must have been under it. What does "under a photo button" mean, anyway? Lower than the button, or covered by the button? I don't have much faith in an interview summary that doesn't make that clear.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2013, 07:38:57 PM »
The interview was conducted on April 2, 2012 -- over a month later.

Response on button and headphones thread.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2013, 10:46:34 PM »
My hazy recollection is that they asked for a subpoena at some point, but it hadn't been granted by the time they turned the case over to Wolfinger's office and the FDLE.

New York Times, 5/16/12

Quote
The police eventually subpoenaed Mr. Martinís cellphone records, but did not receive them in a timely fashion.

In my notes I have some snippets from a 3/21 Miami Herald article, with a link that no longer works.

Quote
As for checking the boyís phone records, Trayvonís phone was locked and detectives were in the process of getting a subpoena for the records, [Sanford police spokesman Sgt. David] Morgenstern said.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2013, 08:06:35 AM »
Ayala reportedly said the gunshot wound was under the button (2/284).

I still don't understand why Ayala would have hallucinated this, when he had no way of knowing there was such a button in one of Martin's pockets.

I think its a fair assumption if he said the gunshot was "under" the button, that the button was covering it.  Maybe its too much to assume an officer (or officer of the court writing up the report) wouldn't use the word "under" it the bullet hole was actually below.  I understand the under and below could have the same meaning when describing the level of an object in relation to another, but these individuals are trained to be precise when writing up reports or describing what they see and "under" would be the precise word to use if an object was covering another, not vertically above. 

As for Ayala, I wouldn't assume he hallucinated anything, but maybe misremembered, depending on how much time had elapsed before his report was taken.  Is it possible he saw a kid who was shot and bleeding out and just started trying to revive him as quick as possible without really thinking about what he was seeing, then later when gathering evidence, saw the button place on TM's chest and is reporting that?   I am not saying I think thats likely, but I think its possible.   

Now, if the button were attached to the sweatshirt and that close to where the entry hole was (over top of, or just above), I can't fathom a reason why the button wouldn't have been tested for blood and gunshot residue.   We haven't seen a report on it, so is the report being held back (seems impossible given sunshine laws and other reports that have been released), or wasn't it tested?  I will make the assumption it wasn't tested.  Is it more reasonable to think an officer would misremember seeing something while in a hurry to try and revive a dying person, or that an entire police force would not think to test an object that was right where the bullet hole was?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #43 on: May 23, 2013, 11:38:20 PM »
As for Ayala, I wouldn't assume he hallucinated anything, but maybe misremembered, depending on how much time had elapsed before his report was taken.

Response on button and headphones thread. 

 

Site Meter
click
tracking