State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) > Witness Discussion

Unidentified Witness


In the June 6th hearing, there was some talk of keeping certain witnesses anonymous. Many of us believed Mr. O'Mara to be speaking of W6 and a few others. After scouring the documents we found some interesting information on page 10 (linked below) that he may not be talking about them. I don't recall any discussion about this witness, but I did take a few month hiatus so that may not be the case at all. Anyway, it seems Mr. O'Mara may have been speaking about her, and that she did see Mr. Martin throw the first blow. Based on a conversation in an email that I've seen a screenshot of, there should be more information over the weekend about it (sorry, not my email so I'm not really at liberty to say what exactly was said and by who).

I recall some discussion about the mysterious 8yo girl. I made a half-hearted effort to find the posts, but no luck. We should have started a thread on her then. I appreciate your doing it now.

There wasn't much said. There wasn't much to say, and a lot of other stuff going on at the time.

The only theory I recall was that she was W-2's daughter. That's the only person mentioned in the discovery that couldn't be excluded, but there is no information about her age. I wouldn't assume she's a minor, although one of the sisters called her visitor a 'little friend'. Some people just talk that way.

The anonymous caller said 8yo girl who lives in a house with a screened patio 'within eyesight of the crime scene', who was an 'eye-witness to the shooting incident'. There are only a few such units, so FDLE must have established whether there was an 8yo girl who lived in one. But the report doesn't say that clearly. It just says they didn't find 'the unknown 8 year old female'. That could mean there is no such person, or it could mean they didn't find such a person who admitted to seeing anything. If they found an 8yo girl who lived in a suitably located unit with a screen, who said she didn't see anything, they could say they didn't find the person described by the caller.

Such vagueness in the report is, of course, fodder for speculation.

If they found a girl and she denied seeing anything, she might well be telling the truth. The caller could simply be wrong.

I think it's fishy that the caller knows the facts claimed, but not the address of the unit. To me that suggests the caller doesn't live in the area. Is his information second-hand? Or third, fourth, fifth?

There was an attorney at the 6/6/13 hearing to represent the witnesses who wanted anonymity. His name is Nielson. He said there were three witnesses. O'Mara indicated that those three were the only ones known to him to have requested anonymity, but he speculated about others who might be interested as well. He didn't say any of them were minors, or had parents/guardians who requested anonymity on their behalf. I would think he would have mentioned if any were minors, since it would have reinforced the case for anonymity for any such witness.

I think the one witness that O'Mara went into some detail about is almost certainly W-6. O'Mara used masculine pronouns, describing him as 'an eyewitness to the altercation' (not to the shooting). He didn't say anything specific about the other two witnesses.

Of the witnesses O'Mara speculated about, he mentioned one in particular that is female, and whose deposition had been taken.

Nielson said that all three of the witnesses he represented had 'as recently as yesterday, as I understand it, met with the State's Attorney's Office.' Nielson also did not suggest that any of the three are minors.

After listening to that part of the hearing again, and re-reading the FDLE report on the 8yo, I don't see anything to suggest that she is one of the three witnesses.

I don't think she's really a minor. Based on the report, it was late March when they got the information on the tip line. I wouldn't find it too far fetched that the person who made the call gave invalid information in an attempt to stay anonymous. Judge Nelson would've known that she was a minor when she ruled that no witness could be anonymous. It could be that we're (those of us who re-found page 10) wrong all together on it being the 8 year old female. In the email, it's hinted that this is a "new" witness. I'm not sure if that means new as in the person was just found out about, or new as in the person hasn't been on a witness list in this case before.

I did get permission to share the email screenshot I spoke of in the original post. Here's the screenshot:


[0] Message Index

Go to full version