Author Topic: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery  (Read 14777 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2013, 08:40:12 PM »
Evidence?

I used to work for a company that provided inventory services to retail stores. My recollection is that retailers often group together items of the same price and general character.

Sure thing...right after you provide evidence that the 7-11 in question lists all Arizona brand products as iced tea on receipts.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2013, 08:54:13 PM »
How 7-Eleven lists Arizona watermelon drink on receipts is something that could be determined for a small investment. I'd expect it's probably the same across the country, but it would be more definitive if a purchase were made in Florida.

Offline cashmere

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2013, 09:48:41 PM »
Can anyone enlighten me as to why it makes a difference?  Arizone Iced Tea vs some other Arizona beverage?  It seems like it would not matter much.  Thanks!

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2013, 10:37:21 PM »
Can anyone enlighten me as to why it makes a difference?  Arizone Iced Tea vs some other Arizona beverage?  It seems like it would not matter much.  Thanks!

One is correct, the other is not.

Since the AriZona brand started with, and is probably best known for, iced tea, it's not unreasonable that someone would see their logo on a can and think tea if they didn't get a closer or longer look at the can (like say if they were trying to do CPR and the can was in the way and they caught a glimpse of it while moving it), so it's not unreasonable that the mistake got started.

But in official reports it really should be accurately recorded exactly what it was.

And where it gets interesting is that the "iced tea and Skittles" meme got very widespread very quickly, so probably the majority of people who've heard anything about this case think it was iced tea, since the various media have little to nothing to clear up the misunderstanding.

And possibly there wasn't a big rush to do so because of uneasiness (since the racial factor had already been raised) about specifically linking "watermelon" to a black person.

But the person supposedly on the phone with Trayvon during his trip to and from the 7-Eleven wouldn't have first heard about the drink from news stories later if Trayvon had specifically told her what he was going after.

So did Witness 8 hear from Trayvon that night that he was buying Skittles and something he mis-identified as iced tea when it was a different flavor drink, or was Witness 8 primed with details gleaned elsewhere instead of learned during a call to which she may or may not have actually been a party, or a call to which she was a party but a call in which the "tea" and Skittles were not specifically discussed, but she was coached to mention them to "hook into" the "young boy armed only with Skittles and Iced Tea versus the racist wanna be cop armed with a gun" narrative?

Her getting that detail wrong may (and I only say may) indicate something untoward about her account of the events of that night.

And the "everybody keeps saying 'Iced Tea' " thing shows how sloppy a lot of the reporting has been.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2013, 01:48:23 AM »
One is correct, the other is not.

Thanks, unitron, for the whole post. Great job defending all us sticklers for minutia.  ;D

I have a few things to add.

Quote
Since the AriZona brand started with, and is probably best known for, iced tea, it's not unreasonable that someone would see their logo on a can and think tea if they didn't get a closer or longer look at the can (like say if they were trying to do CPR and the can was in the way and they caught a glimpse of it while moving it)

It's fairly clear that didn't happen. We know who moved the can. It was firefighter Stacey Livingston.

On another small point, we've gotten used to calling all the SFD people 'paramedics', or 'EMTs'. Livingston said only two of them were paramedics (FDLE, 3/24/12, 3:34). Livingston also said the object resembled 'a soda can' and 'I didn't determine what it was' (3:06). An FDLE report states: 'During a later interview, FF Livingston was asked if she remembered if there was a bag with the can. FF Livingston could only recall the can, not the bag.' (82/284)

The location of the can, before an unidentified person put it on top of the blanket covering Martin, can be see in a FOX News photo.

The can was described as 'Arizona ice [sic] tea' by Sgt. Santiago, 'Arizona Ice [sic] Tea by Sgt. Ciesla, and 'Arizona tea' by CST Diana Smith (16, 20, 80/184). Ciesla and Smith measured the evidence items, presumably including the can.

Quote
But the person supposedly on the phone with Trayvon during his trip to and from the 7-Eleven wouldn't have first heard about the drink from news stories later if Trayvon had specifically told her what he was going after.

W-8's statements about the beverage are discussed in this post.

It's interesting, and frustrating, that W-8 apparently volunteered the flavor in one of her earliest known accounts, but it's not intelligible.

Excerpt from the post, with links added:

Quote
It's a shame the word after 'Arizona' isn't intelligible. I'd like to know if Dee Dee knew the beverage was a fruit drink, not 'tea'.

At this point in the 4/2 SAO interview, Dee Dee said the items for 'his little brother' were 'some food, and some drink' (4:29-37). Later in the interview, de la Rionda asked her to confirm that previously she had said 'iced tea', which she did. (19:32-43). That may refer to the early part of the interview, which was neither recorded nor sworn. However, the summary (36/284) just says 'a drink and candy'.

There is another reason some of us are interested in this, a reason not to be named. It can be found elsewhere. There's a hint in this post.

Plus, it's a curiosity. Why do people keep getting this wrong, after it's been corrected all over the web?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 01:51:05 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline DiwataMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2013, 04:28:41 AM »
I have to say I'm enjoying this conversation around the "iced tea" regarding the supp. I think it's difficult for those of us so deeply involved to step outside it all and look down with an outsiders perspective. I can't imagine what some newcomers thoughts are to many of the conversations that take place regarding many aspects of this case.

I really don't know why the State doesn't utilize the site they set up specifically for releasing discovery. So much time and energy could be saved if they did. So a simple copy of the receipt would at least settle some of the mystery.

I suppose one could go buy a Watermelon Cocktail  ;) and see what it says on the receipt. Although there are other variables that could give different results, so just because you might get a receipt that says one thing does not mean that's what it would say for this purchase from that 711 made on that day from that store with that register.

I wonder though, if it did say Iced Tea, what would that mean? I suppose the 2Tray folks will find some interest  ;) Perhaps the Trayvonites would say "SEE! Told you it was Iced Tea!",  :o now that would have some entertainment value ;D

However if it doesn't say Iced Tea on the receipt it does cause one to wonder why "they" put that description instead of what the receipt actually says. In that regard there does contain an element of seriousness. Though maybe not with this specific issue, simple errors of such nature can potentially have serious effects and with something as important as a person's death and a murder charge, it's absolutely critical to get everything accurate and detailed. When one sees such simple errors one also questions what other errors could be and as such begin to question the ability and credibility of investigators and the judicial system.

Personally I think it was at the very beginning a result of effective branding by the Arizona company. Too effective I'm sure for the company because it would like you to be aware of its other products but when people think the Arizona brand they think Iced Tea.

After that it was a result of effective propaganda from Crump et al.

Both the branding which got it into reports and propaganda that got it into the public narrative have very much like many other myths taken root in the psyche of many of those who have paid attention to and/or are involved in this case, even the prosecutors themselves. Myth is a powerful and pervasive beast.

Thinking back on it now I can't recall if O'Mara has ever referenced it and what his description was or even if he ever corrected anyone on it. Odd. Perhaps I'll research this aspect but nothing immediately comes to mind.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 04:33:05 AM by DiwataMan »

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2013, 11:13:48 AM »
Thanks, unitron, for the whole post. Great job defending all us sticklers for minutia.  ;D...

We minutiamen (some of whom may be women) gotta stick together.  :)

I don't know that I necessarily "lean" toward the non-tea explanation which may not be named, but it bears being aware of in analyzing the "to tea or not to tea" question.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2013, 12:00:34 PM »
I can't imagine what some newcomers thoughts are to many of the conversations that take place regarding many aspects of this case.

When I was a kid, many middle-aged liberal and conservative pundits were occasionally re-fighting the battles of the McCarthy Era. Hiss/Chambers, actually a bit before McCarthy, was a favorite, especially with Nixon being president. It was a while before I understood why they kept talking about a pumpkin. (A hollowed out pumpkin was, or allegedly was, at some point used to hide some evidence. How long it would take a hollowed out pumpkin to decay was a point, always good for a few rounds.)

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2013, 11:52:54 PM »
The receipt says AZ Watermelon Fruit Juice.

The 17th discovery is now available, 31 pages, including the gym records, Roberts cell phone records for 2/26, the 7-11 receipt and the letter rejecting him for the police dept in 2009. He joined the gym in 2010, listing his goals, one of which was a police career. He also listed self-defense as a reason for joining the gym. He was 285 pounds. The police dept no longer has his file, just the rejection letter and a one line description of why he wasn't admitted. I couldn't make out the reason, but it sounds to me like he didn't pass the physical requirements and wanted to lose weight to meet them, so he joined the gym. Or maybe he didn't have the requisite educational experience and that's why he enrolled in the college program.  Seems far too distant from 2/26/12 to have any relevance.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2013, 12:02:05 AM »
Says the PWCPD keeps stuff for 3 years, so if Fla. had been on the ball, they could have gotten more last year before it was shredded.

I wonder if that parenthetical mention of Collection Issues/Credit History had anything to do with the turn-down.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2013, 12:12:12 AM »
Says the PWCPD keeps stuff for 3 years, so if Fla. had been on the ball, they could have gotten more last year before it was shredded.

I wonder if that parenthetical mention of Collection Issues/Credit History had anything to do with the turn-down.

that's an unsupported character attack, speculating he had bad credit. Please keep those suppositions to yourself, or at least, don't speculate on such tihngs here.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2013, 12:34:24 AM »
that's an unsupported character attack, speculating he had bad credit. Please keep those suppositions to yourself, or at least, don't speculate on such tihngs here.

I don't know what George's credit situation was back then, and I don't care, and I don't see it as relevant to the case.

(I also don't really see the application for the job with them,  or for that matter the not getting it, as relevant to it, either)

But I'm wondering why the police mentioned it in the letter, and did so in such an odd way.

And if it wasn't the reason for the turn down, I'm really wondering what it's doing in that letter.

I'm not speculating about Zimmerman, I'm trying to figure out what the Prince William County PD is/was doing.

(and by the way, it's not impossible that they had incorrect information about his credit history and thought there was something wrong when there wasn't)

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2013, 01:39:42 PM »
If I were the defense, I'd certainly file a motion in limine to exclude mention of the gym membership and police application.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2013, 01:43:24 PM »
If they also had witnesses who would testify that Zimmerman had achieved competence in the martial arts, would that be relevant?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's 17th Supplemental Discovery
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2013, 02:01:09 PM »
If they also had witnesses who would testify that Zimmerman had achieved competence in the martial arts, would that be relevant?

I'm not sure why it would be unless the defense somehow opens the door. The judge has already ruled evidence of TM's fighting prowess and actual inclination to fight isn't admissible unless the state opens the door. There is evidence from GZ's injuries and W6's original statement that TM's fighting skill may be relevant. There's been no indication that any skill GZ had played a part in the altercation.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking