Author Topic: Thoughts on Week One of Trial  (Read 19774 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2013, 11:15:08 AM »
They need a court order to do that in a homicide investigation?  ???  That sounds bizarre.  I doubt they do things that way on the TV cop show Rachel mentioned.

The show she mentioned is called "The First 48". It's an A&E show, but is now on a bunch of different channels, since I guess most of them are owned by the same people.

It's a non-fiction show and pretty well done at that, at least based on the 2-3 episodes I've seen.


Quote
The First 48 takes viewers behind the scenes of real-life investigations as it follows homicide detectives in the critical first 48 hours of murder investigations, giving viewers unprecedented access to crime scenes, interrogations and forensic processing.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2013, 11:28:48 AM »
Ricky, she doesn't care about telling the truth. I almost question whether she knows what the truth is. She has different stories for different people at different times. She told several versions just on the stand. Including a couple of times when she did it within a half hour or so.
Have you read any of the books by terrorist interrogators like Ali Soufian or Matthew Alexander?  By getting to be pals with their subjects, they made much more intelligent and determined to lie people than Rachel Jeantel crack and spill the beans.  I think such tactics would have worked with Rachel since she didn't have any special rapport with the parents or Crump.  Are you ready to give the investigative work in this case a pass?  Why were there no real SPD or FDLE interviews and investigation of her?  The Florida Legislature should see if travesties like BDLR's interview of this witness can be prevented in the future.  A prosecutor doing what he did would get into really big trouble in Europe and I hope in some places in the US.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2013, 11:32:59 AM »
I have no idea how my belief that Rachel isn't very bright and doesn't care about telling the truth--for whatever reason(s) has to do with terrorist interrogation.

I'm not going down the European rabbit hole with you.  :)

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2013, 11:53:11 AM »
The show she mentioned is called "The First 48". It's an A&E show, but is now on a bunch of different channels, since I guess most of them are owned by the same people.

It's a non-fiction show and pretty well done at that, at least based on the 2-3 episodes I've seen.

That triggered a few thoughts. In "brain dump" order ...

SPD had no need to review the victim's phone to figure out who the shooter was.  They had him, he admitted it.

SPD had no need to review the victim's phone to get eyewitness testimony.  Neighbors came forward, were interviewed, Zimmerman was interviewed, etc.  That evidence did not produce probable cause that the shooting was not justified use of force.

So, in a sense, following the "First 48 hours" paradigm, Rachael is correct.  If the investigator needed her testimony, he would have called.  No investigator called.  None of the people in the investigating body had any need for whatever information was on the phone, except to the extent it might facilitate locating next of kin, which is not a "crime solving" activity anyway.  The reason nobody called Rachael is that her testimony is not needed.  Even now, her testimony does not change the outcome of the case.  She has a vested interest to lie (not saying she is lying, just goes to credibility), and she did not see the incident, so whatever she has to say does not carry as much weight as the RTL residents' testimony.

The only reason Rachael's testimony gets as much traction as it does is that the press has whipped up a false narrative.  If you started out with W6, W11, injuries to the combatants, Zimmerman's account, the relative sizes of the two combatants (no Hollister image, no smiling little kid), and three weeks later a vague account from an earwitness who is said to refuse to cooperate with investigators, the scale has to discount the reluctant earwitness.  There is still no probable cause.  And we are seeing that fact (lack of probable cause) play out in the courtroom - but her account gets more traction now, thanks to false impressions cultivated by the press.

She'll be back after Nelson denies the first motion for judgment of acquittal.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2013, 11:59:40 AM »
I'm not going down the European rabbit hole with you.  :)

Heheh.  Take one of the most obviously dishonest prosecutions and unprofessional investigations ever, referring to the SAO interaction with Rachael  (by a professional investigator, mind you), and then use THAT example as justification for why the US should use professional investigators.  Hahahahah.

It's not hard to dig up dirt on European cases that are cockeyed.  Anyway, for purposes of the Zimmerman case, what I did with RJ is put him on my "ignore" list.  Nothing personal, no hard feelings, he seems a most pleasant person.  But his interests and peeves bore me.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2013, 12:08:52 PM »
Sorry cbolt but I don't buy that calling the last number wouldn't have been a valid investigative thing to do on the evening of 2/26/12 or shortly thereafter.  Wasn't there originally some bizarre excuse that they couldn't find an appropriate charger?  ???   Only after a week or so did the consensus in the SPD congeal that Zimmerman's self defense case was good so calling the last number early on might give some insight on whether there was a connection between Martin and Zimmerman or was Martin on the phone shortly before being killed with somebody who had good information.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2013, 12:37:27 PM »
They need a court order to do that in a homicide investigation?

They needed a court order to get the code to unlock the phone. Have you not been paying attention? I thought you had participated in discussions of this.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2013, 01:01:12 PM »
I probably didn't understand why the phone was "locked".  Certainly Martin didn't lock it.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2013, 01:10:41 PM »
I probably didn't understand why the phone was "locked".  Certainly Martin didn't lock it.

When it shut off because of the low battery, it probably automatically went into locked mode.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2013, 01:13:44 PM »
I probably didn't understand why the phone was "locked".  Certainly Martin didn't lock it.

Maybe Tracy did, since he didn't bother to help get it unlocked and instead lawyered up instead of giving over the password?

Offline redstripe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2013, 01:15:10 PM »


The police/EMTs seem to be more Defense witnesses than the State and I could NOT help but to laugh whenever BDLR would raise his voice at his own witnesses.  Who yells at their own?



Notwithstanding the last few days of witnesses, it actually seemed like some of the essential parts of the prosecution's 2nd degree murder case started falling apart not long after the opening statements were made. As expected, the state's argument for GZ's 'depraved mind' rested heavily on the "f*ing punks"/"these a**holes aways get away" comments, which formed the centerpiece of Guy's opening while he was trying to establish the slow-burning, murderous rage Zimmerman allegedly harbored that night.  As soon as the defense played the NEN call, however, it became pretty obvious IMO that Guy's reenactment was way off the mark. Now, if he had merely mentioned them in the spirit of "here are just a few of the many damning pieces of evidence against Zimmerman" the juxtaposition wouldn't have been all that bad. However, hearing the way in which those statements actually came  out of Zimmerman's mouth, which was (again IMO) much more in the spirit of a bored, somewhat frustrated/disappointed lament than a war cry, made their repeated melodramatic delivery from a prosecutor with a noticeably deeper voice than GZ unconvincing at best, and somewhat ridiculous at worst.

The same criticism applies to GZ's flashlights.  The fact that GZ decided to take an extra flashlight could, conceivably, bolster the specific assertion that he intended or hoped to spot TM in the dark instead of just needing an implement to see where he was going. However, the way in which Guy, with little background, simply exclaimed that GZ got out of his car with "not one...but TWO flashlights" (as if having two flashlights was a self-evident indicator of malice) was odd and somewhat desperate-sounding IMO.

I wonder if the state may lower their expectations and set their sights on locking in a manslaughter conviction. I can see them backing off slightly from the argument over whether Zimmerman chased TM down and started the physical altercation and instead focusing on the argument that, whatever happened beforehand, GZ's use of deadly force was not proportional or justified compared to the injuries he sustained or that Martin, as an unarmed teenager, was capable of inflicting upon him.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 01:19:54 PM by redstripe »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2013, 01:23:13 PM »
Maybe Tracy did, since he didn't bother to help get it unlocked and instead lawyered up instead of giving over the password?

I don't think that's too likely, since Tracy didn't have access to the phone.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2013, 01:27:37 PM »
The same criticism applies to GZ's flashlights.  The fact that GZ decided to take an extra flashlight could, conceivably, bolster the specific assertion that he intended or hoped to spot TM in the dark instead of just needing an implement to see where he was going. However, the way in which Guy, with little background, simply exclaimed that GZ got out of his car with "not one...but TWO flashlights" (as if having two flashlights was a self-evident indicator of malice) was odd and somewhat desperate-sounding IMO.

He said that!?! Good grief. I wonder what the jury thought when they found out the second flashlight was a mini-flashlight attached to GZ's keyring.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2013, 01:30:28 PM »
Sorry cbolt but I don't buy that calling the last number wouldn't have been a valid investigative thing to do on the evening of 2/26/12 or shortly thereafter.  Wasn't there originally some bizarre excuse that they couldn't find an appropriate charger?  ???   Only after a week or so did the consensus in the SPD congeal that Zimmerman's self defense case was good so calling the last number early on might give some insight on whether there was a connection between Martin and Zimmerman or was Martin on the phone shortly before being killed with somebody who had good information.

What I was implying was that that investigative avenue wasn't necessary, given the other evidence available.  I don't see it as an issue of "validity," but one of need.  There are many valid avenues of investigation, in any case, that aren't probed (or aren't "hot" priorities, like in the first 48 hours), usually because the evidence in hand is viewed as sufficient.

I believe the record shows that the police were curious, and made efforts to obtain the contents of Martin's phone.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2013, 01:31:19 PM »
I don't think that's too likely, since Tracy didn't have access to the phone.

I just don't know a phone that locks when the battery runs out. No phone I've ever had has done it, and no phone of anyone I know has done it.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking