Short Morning Session - 6/21/13

[nomatter_nevermind]

Video of the 6/21 session.


I'm thinking we're all just going to have to wait until Monday for a Frye ruling. Blame West.

[nomatter_nevermind]

The state's motion is now on the court website. The witness's name is Gordon Pleasance.

The motion cites 3.190(j) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 3.190(j) is on p. 92, but I think the paragraph they have in mind is 3.190(i) in the linked version of the document, p. 91. Rule 3.190(j) applies to cases with a victim who is either elderly, or under 16.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Mantei agreed that Zimmerman was appointed captain of the NW, and was out of the car when the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow, and said he didn't intend to say otherwise.

Mantei raised a couple of logistical matters, which he called 'housekeeping'.

Sorry, both of these were actually John Guy.

[nomatter_nevermind]

John Guy said the prosecution would not claim that Zimmerman 'profiled' Martin 'exclusively' or 'solely' because of race, and therefore their use of 'profiled' would not be 'racially charged' (Video).

Until now I felt that the prosecutors were carefully avoiding any overt accusation of racial profiling. I think Guy's statement is a turning point in how they talk about the case.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Nelson was just repeating what Guy had said about the state's case to justify them using "confronted" in their opening statement.  Can anyone dig up the exact quote?

Video

Guy: And the last one, he confronted, he confronted Trayvon Martin. That's the state's theory of the case. And we believe we have evidence to support that.

RJ

Apparently they now have more evidence of confronting than Dale Gilbreath knew about when he testified the bond hearing.

I don't see where you're getting that.

Well, enough to keep us guessing until Monday. 

I think we'll still be guessing after Monday.

[RickyJim]

Here is confronted back on April 20, 2012:

O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty words. O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?

GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.

O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.

GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.

O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?

GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish.

O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you?

GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question.

I guess this transcript is the best we have for a preview of what the prosecution will say on Monday.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Here is confronted back on April 20, 2012:

I'm familiar with that. Gilbreath gave a peculiar definition of the word 'confronted'.

On 6/22/12, Guy wasn't under questioning, and didn't talk about definitions. It's apples and oranges. I still don't understand the inference you are drawing.

 

[RickyJim]

The only inference is that on Monday they will claim more about the confronting than Gilbreath did. 

[nomatter_nevermind]

On 6/22/12, Guy wasn't under questioning, and didn't talk about definitions.

Sorry, that hearing was 6/21/13. It's in the title of the thread.

[Evil Chinchilla]

GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area.

But "ended up together in that dog walk area" doesn't establish how they got there. It doesn't disprove George's version of the incident at all.

GILBREATH: According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

Which witness, though?

W11 says she heard arguing, but places where she heard the altercation start in a location that supports George.

W18 has been all over the map with her narrative in her media appearances, but she originally said "two men" were arguing in her statement, and her location supports what W11 says.

W2 originally gave the state one of its strongest pieces of evidence when she said she saw two figures running from the direction of Brandy Green's townhouse toward the top of the T.

Then she cracked and admitted she didn't have her contacts in or her glasses on, and might have seen only one person running, or possibly none. (And the structure of her townhome begs the question of how she saw what she claimed, even if she had 20/20 vision.)

But though she claims to have heard running, I don't remember that W2 ever claimed to have heard "arguing words going on", much less "between two people."

And then there's W8. 

While she definitely claims she heard "arguing words going on before this incident occurred" and that "it was between two people," she claims the confrontation started while TM was "right by his Dad's house."

However, she only established this location for the start of the altercation on what must have been at least the fourth version of her narrative-- and I suspect this detail was given in the 4/2 deposition only because Team Crump had knowledge of W2's statement-- but not that she retracted it-- and intended to use that to support the claim that George chased TM from "right by his Dad's house" to the top of the T.

But even W8 places the first words of the exchange with TM, not George. And the fact that she states that TM was "right by his Dad's house" but gave no reason for why he didn't simply go inside and lock the door when he saw George approaching suggests the possibility that TM was seeking a confrontation with George.

But can W8 be used to establish anything any more? She's right up there with Reich and W2 as a witness that it would be fun to watch BDLR squirm while the holes in her credibility are exposed in detail for the jury.

So have they possibly got a previously undisclosed witness up their sleeve?

[nomatter_nevermind]

W18 has been all over the map with her narrative in her media appearances

I don't think I have seen all her media appearances. In those I have seen, and in her oral and written statements to investigators, my recollection is that she has been quite consistent about hearing two periods of loud, arguing voices, with silence in between.

[nomatter_nevermind]

And then there's W8. [snip]

 she claims the confrontation started while TM was "right by his Dad's house."

W-8 never said where Martin was at the time the confrontation started.

You are cherry-picking pieces of evidence and jamming them together as it suits you.

[nomatter_nevermind]

I suspect this detail was given in the 4/2 deposition only because Team Crump had knowledge of W2's statement-- but not that she retracted it-- and intended to use that to support the claim that George chased TM from "right by his Dad's house" to the top of the T.

I've explained before why I don't believe this theory makes sense.

[Evil Chinchilla]

Quote from: Evil Chinchilla on Today at 12:03:53 PM
W18 has been all over the map with her narrative in her media appearances

I don't think I have seen all her media appearances. In those I have seen, and in her oral and written statements to investigators, my recollection is that she has been quite consistent about hearing two periods of loud, arguing voices, with silence in between.

You "cherry-picked" that quote to ignore the part wherre I continued "but she originally said "two men" were arguing in her statement".

And W18's statements have been previously described here as changing in the media retellings:

She said during the call it was too dark to make out who was who in the struggle. She changed this later in the call after she saw Zimmerman get up. She  has said both that  she didn't call 911 until after hearing the pop and that she was on the phone with them when the shot happened.

She hired a lawyer and they made the rounds on CNN, from Anderson Cooper to Ashleigh Banfield and more. In some interviews her voice is disguised, sometimes as a male.  Her wording in her 911 call is similar to her later interviews: the "pop" sound, the thought someone might have been walking their dog in the rain, and a lot more, her description of her 911 call and what she saw, etc.  Her lawyer has been identified and given interviews.

In her 911 call, she said there were other neighbors whose porches were closer to the where the shooting occurred, who might have helped. It was too dark for her to see anyone clearly until after hearing the shot. She was so distraught during the call the dispatcher offered to send an ambulance to her house. She and her lawyer, Derek Brett of Orlando, later made the CNN rounds, with her face and voice being shielded. By then, she was convinced it was a young boy, Trayvon, who had cried out for help.

She doesn't describe the man as Hispanic in her 911 call, only in later interviews does she say she could see the man walking away was Hispanic. What she saw was Zimmerman walking away after the shot when people with flashlights had arrived on scene. She didn't even have her window open when she first heard what sounded like a scuffle before the shot. Then she turned her attention elsewhere until she heard them again. She called 911, and appears to be looking out her window describing what she is seeing. She says she heard a "pop." She wasn't sure it was a gunshot. She couldn't identify who was on top during the scuffle. She assumes it was the younger person because the older one walked away after it was over.

She is the witness who later described an "authoritative" voice. She assumes the older person has the authoritative voice. As I've said before, we've heard Zimmerman's voice, it's timid. We haven't heard Travyon's voice. She hears Zimmerman say he shot someone and surrender to police.

This is a classic case of an eyewitness memory being contaminated by post-event information, where the witness' memory of the original event is blended with information received later through the media. The result is a new memory is formed that is not accurate.

Then there's this exchange about her in the same thread:

Responding to comment on another thread.

Quote from: Juan on August 06, 2012, 01:46:47 PM

She only claims to have heard the shot fired (pop noise) while she was calling 911 & thinks she heard two shots. She can't remember if she was even still at the window when on the phone with 911 & "panicking".

That's what she told Serino the night of the shooting. Her memory, like Zimmerman's, improved with time.

See p. 90 of the May 17 release, and pp. 16-17 of the July 12 release.

She also claimed to have witnessed the shooting on at least one of her CNN interviews.

Same reply as in the other thread ....

If you listen to her 911 call, she had already heard "like a bang" before her conversation with the 911 operator. She writes in her statement (5/17 release) the impossibility of her holding the phone up to the screen (for the 911 operator to hear) while watching & then hears a popping noise. An obvious misstatement of fact easily refuted by the tape of her 911 call.

Again in the 7/12 release she repeats her bogus claim of observing one on top of another & hearing the "pop" (more than one time), while on the phone with 911. The 911 tape again refutes the possibility of this happening. She is not a credible witness.

I didn't say she was.

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2045.0.html

[nomatter_nevermind]

Gosh, you've wasted a lot of work on points that aren't in dispute.

One thing I forgot to mention, is that W-18 on her 911 call mentioned hearing people talking, and then 'more talking voices'. I don't think W-18's later recollections are credible, but I do think the statements on her 911 call are credible.

If Gilbreath was thinking about the vocalizations described by W11 as part of the 'incident', then I think he must have meant W-18, as the only witness who heard vocalizations earlier than that. On reflection, I don't really see any reason to think he meant that, so he could have meant either W-11 or W-18.

This is the question Gilbreath was responding to.

O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

Gilbreath was not responding to a question about evidence that contradicted Zimmerman.