TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Media Coverage and Bias => Topic started by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 06:27:47 AM

Title: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 06:27:47 AM
The title is set to be: “If I Had A Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman.”

From his website (http://www.cashill.com/) and previous books, I think his point of view is very similar to that of the CTH.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 06:45:25 AM
Coincidentally, I just read a recent post by Cashill.

Quote
The major media, as is their custom with contrary facts, chose not to look in places they might find them.

Then he cheerfully disregards any facts inconvenient for Zimmerman, such as W-6 recanting his 'MMA' statement. 

Cashill is a hack, not worth attention in my opinion.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 07:18:10 AM
I agree about Cahill.  An objective author would also discuss how Zimmerman's statements to investigators and TV hosts complicate his defense.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: Philly on March 11, 2013, 09:53:05 AM
Coincidentally, I just read a recent post by Cashill.

Then he cheerfully disregards any facts inconvenient for Zimmerman, such as W-6 recanting his 'MMA' statement. 

From W-6's follow-up interview:
"in my first statement that I made, I did say that he was hitting him from on top, um, because that's what it looked like. I mean he could have still been hitting him, or he could have been trying to hold him down, you know."

I think it's a bit stretch to throw the loaded word "recanted" at his testimony.  John changed from saying TM was punching GZ to saying it looked like TM was hitting GZ.  To me, that's a clarification/reduction in confidence, not a denial.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 10:12:20 AM
I think it's a bit stretch to throw the loaded word "recanted" at his testimony. 

It's not a loaded word. It's an accurate description.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: who007 on March 11, 2013, 10:15:56 AM
From W-6's follow-up interview:
"in my first statement that I made, I did say that he was hitting him from on top, um, because that's what it looked like. I mean he could have still been hitting him, or he could have been trying to hold him down, you know."

I think it's a bit stretch to throw the loaded word "recanted" at his testimony.  John changed from saying TM was punching GZ to saying it looked like TM was hitting GZ.  To me, that's a clarification/reduction in confidence, not a denial.
There is nearly an hour long tape of "John" going over and over it again with law enforcement.  Have you listened to it?
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 10:44:54 AM
not a denial.

I checked my dictionary, Webster's Third International, 2002, and it confirms that 'recant' does not imply 'deny'. The operative words in the definition are 'withdraw' and 'repudiate'.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: Kyreth on March 11, 2013, 10:54:11 AM
W-6 explains why he had that impression that he shared, and admits he's not positive but still seems to have the opinion that there was punching and George screaming.

I wouldn't call that "withdrawn".
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: Kyreth on March 11, 2013, 11:01:25 AM
In fact, we don't know what W6 said in his deposition; after knowing that George had the bloody face and head, in light of what he saw he might be positive now that what he saw was punching.

And an analogy to explain the reasoning behind that:

A witness sees someone fire a gun, and someone a hundred feet away fall to the ground, and says "OMG, he shot him!"

When asked about it later he says "I saw the gun fired and I saw the guy drop...but I didn't see the bullet him him, so I'm not sure...the guy could have just ducked and hit the ground out of fear."

How sure would he be that the shooter shot the guy once he finds out later there was a bullet hole in him?

During the 2nd bond hearing, O'Mara had W6 ready to testify at the hearing in case his written statement was rejected, so the Defense had already talked to him at that point...and after talking to W6, O'Mara was quite confident with using W6's claim that there was MMA style punching.  So, I expect that once we hear from W6 again, he'll be pretty confident that he saw George getting punched.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: DebFrmHell on March 11, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
"in my first statement that I made, I did say that he was hitting him from on top, um, because that's what it looked like. I mean he could have still been hitting him, or he could have been trying to hold him down, you know."

"I mean he could have been" doing whatever verb  but it still looked to him like GZ was getting struck from on top by TM.

I don't think he diminished what he said he saw. 
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 11:18:17 AM
My summary of the last W #6 interview:

I think this, along with Zimmerman's injuries, is enough to establish reasonable doubt in Zimmerman's favor.  After the move to the concrete, Zimmerman had a reasonable expectation of serious harm to himself.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 11:21:13 AM
People can say black is white until the cows come home. Anyone who cares can listen to the recordings and decide for themselves.

What's funny, is that I hear the same nonsense from the 'other side', about W-2.

W-6 recanted 'raining down blows MMA style'.

W-2 recanted 'two guys running' and 'fistfight'.

If anyone doesn't like it, tough.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: leftwig on March 11, 2013, 11:35:43 AM
W6 said TM's back was to him at first observance, which would mean he was shielding some activity.  I think his first statement was simply what he saw looked like the guy on top was putting a beating on the guy on the bottom.  In a later interview, he was questioned about whether he could hear fist hitting face, which is when he recanted.  I gather his recanting was that he couldn't see contact due to conditions, but that his initial observation was accurate (guy on top was hitting or physically restraining guy on the bottom).  W-2 went from being in one area of the house seeing 2 guys in a chase x feet apart to being in a different part of the house with her contacts out and not sure she saw anything other than some shadows.  I'm not sure their change in testimony is a fair comparison.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 11:43:15 AM
During the 2nd bond hearing, O'Mara had W6 ready to testify at the hearing in case his written statement was rejected, so the Defense had already talked to him at that point . . . and after talking to W6, O'Mara was quite confident with using W6's claim that there was MMA style punching.  So, I expect that once we hear from W6 again, he'll be pretty confident that he saw George getting punched.

Response (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2015.msg107505.html#msg107505) on W-6 thread.

I suggest/request that others do the same. The W-6 discussion has left Mr. Cashill behind. It isn't on topic here.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 11:53:00 AM
I'm not sure their change in testimony is a fair comparison.

Response (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2015.msg107509.html#msg107509) on W-6 thread.

Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: MJW on March 11, 2013, 12:27:26 PM
It's not a loaded word. It's an accurate description.

I sometimes check S.I. Hayakawa's book Use the Right Word: A Modern Guide to Synonyms when I want to make sure a word means what I think it means. Here's the entry for recant.

Recant once indicated the solemn retracting of a heresy by a former adherent. Witches were required to recant publicly or be hanged. It still applies to the reputation of a doctrine or ideology and is more forceful than retract in suggesting a total disavowing or abject capitulation, including an admission of past guilt and an implied promise to foreswear the error in the future: those who recanted Communism after the infamous nonaggression pact.

That's certainly how I interpret the word. If W6 admitted he had lied, and it was actually Zimmerman raining down blows on Martin, recant would apply. Saying he wasn't certain, not so much.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: DebFrmHell on March 11, 2013, 10:11:36 PM
People can say black is white until the cows come home. Anyone who cares can listen to the recordings and decide for themselves.

What's funny, is that I hear the same nonsense from the 'other side', about W-2.

W-6 recanted 'raining down blows MMA style'.

W-2 recanted 'two guys running' and 'fistfight'.

If anyone doesn't like it, tough.
http://www.farmissues.com/photos/uploadimages/ofacd058a.JPG



 ;)  Their...heeee....rrrrreeeee.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: TalkLeft on March 12, 2013, 02:28:28 AM
There was no recanting by witness 6 or 13. Neither changed the most critical elements of their accounts. W-6 didn't budge from his assertion that during the struggle (in which someone cried out for help) Trayvon was in black and on top of Zimmerman whose shirt or jacket was red. W-13 didn't change his account of what he saw or what Zimmerman said, he just provided his perception of Zimmerman's demeanor when later asked.

As to witnesses 2 and 12, see here (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/23/133958/924).
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 12, 2013, 11:56:32 AM
There was no recanting by witness 6 or 13. Neither changed the most critical elements of their accounts. W-6 didn't budge from his assertion that during the struggle (in which someone cried out for help) Trayvon was in black and on top of Zimmerman whose shirt or jacket was red. W-13 didn't change his account of what he saw or what Zimmerman said, he just provided his perception of Zimmerman's demeanor when later asked.

As to witnesses 2 and 12, see here (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/23/133958/924).

If you leave in the "raining down blows MMA style" (or however W6 really said it), then you've got a good probability that Martin started the physical contact, you've got Zimmerman being on the losing end of things just before pulling his gun and shooting, and you've got Martin very unlikely to be aware of the gun.

Would you have sufficient faith in your MMA-style blows to leave the other guy's hands free to pull out his gun?

But if you change it to "he was on top with his arms extended", you increase the possibility that Martin was aware of the gun and was trying to keep Zimmerman's arms pinned while he, Martin, yelled for help because he feared getting shot.

I think maybe that is the change of a critical element.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: RickyJim on March 12, 2013, 12:20:44 PM
Witness #6 seemed to say it was 50-50 whether Zimmerman was actually being hit or just being held down.  It was too dark to make out moving arms.  Since the defense doesn't have the burden of proof in the trial, this is good enough for them.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: FromBelow on March 12, 2013, 12:42:52 PM
But if you change it to "he was on top with his arms extended", you increase the possibility that Martin was aware of the gun and was trying to keep Zimmerman's arms pinned while he, Martin, yelled for help because he feared getting shot.

I think maybe that is the change of a critical element.

Odd that TM, when calling out for help to John, didn't mention that GZ had a gun. Did he expect John to just wade in without giving him a warning that GZ was armed? Also odd that if his greatest fear was getting shot that he never mentioned it in any of his screams for help. Not even a simple "Help! He's got a gun!" IMO, there's absolutely nothing to support a theory that TM was aware GZ had a gun until the last few seconds. If you have some evidence to support the theory I'd like to hear it.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: leftwig on March 12, 2013, 01:29:48 PM
The more detailed that W6 can get, the better it is for the defense.  Clearly he sees TM on top, the prosecution really doesn't attempt to counter it.  He said he saw TM throwing down blows MMA style, prompted by the police interviewer or not, he agreed that it fit the description of what he saw.  The prosecution attacked this because of the lighting and angles that W6 said he first noticed them.  They questioned whether he could see anything specific or heard skin to skin contact.  He conceded he didn't hear that and it seems to me thought about his choice of words and the conditions that given TM's back to him shielding what he was seeing, he could not say with certainty that TM was actually connecting with any blows or even that no blows were thrown and it was just forcible restraint.  I think a demonstration by W6 is in order. 

I have a difficult time buying that its TM calling to W6 for help for multiple reasons.   As mentioned, he's clearly in the dominant position and if he is asking for help because he sees GZ's gun, you'd think he'd mention it or at least say to call 911.  Also, W6 said his back was to him, so I'd at least look at the guy he's seeking help from.  GZ wouldn't mention 911 because he had already called them and they were on the way and being in a defensive position would need immediate help.   We can't say with absolute certainty who called out to W6 for help, but using reason and logic, we can make a pretty good guess.  Austin also said initially the guy in red on the ground was screaming, though I'm not sure how much weight to give his statements (ie, he either didn't get that good of a look, or is leaving out some details since he doesn't mention seeing anyone else).
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 12, 2013, 02:54:20 PM
If I were trying to keep someone from getting to a gun I feared would be used on me, I'm not sure just how coherent my screams of terror would be.

If I were not aware of the gun I might still be trying to keep pinned the arms of someone who considerably outweighed me that I was afraid was going to hit me.

I wasn't there, I didn't see how things started or who first laid hands on whom, and was not in a position to tell who did what screaming and hollering,  but to me raining punches down on Zimmerman versus just trying to keep his arms pinned is a distinction with a difference.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: MJW on March 12, 2013, 03:04:29 PM
If I were trying to keep someone from getting to a gun I feared would be used on me, I'm not sure just how coherent my screams of terror would be.

If I were not aware of the gun I might still be trying to keep pinned the arms of someone who considerably outweighed me that I was afraid was going to hit me.

You really don't think you'd mention the gun if you were on top, holding down someone with a gun? I can't imagine that I wouldn't.

It might very well make sense that Martin would try to pin Zimmerman's arms even if he knew nothing of the gun. It doesn't make sense that he'd be desperately screaming for help.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: FromBelow on March 12, 2013, 03:27:19 PM
If I were trying to keep someone from getting to a gun I feared would be used on me, I'm not sure just how coherent my screams of terror would be.

So you believe someone who was in the dominant position as you propose in your theory (being on top of GZ and having GZ's arms pinned) and having already gotten in a few good shots (evidenced by GZ's injuries and the state's admission that TM hit GZ) without being injured himself, would be screaming incoherently in terror? Never once would he say something like "Don't shoot me!" or "He's got a gun!"? Ok, but that seems like a very unlikely scenario to me.

Quote
If I were not aware of the gun I might still be trying to keep pinned the arms of someone who considerably outweighed me that I was afraid was going to hit me.

See above.

Quote
I wasn't there, I didn't see how things started or who first laid hands on whom, and was not in a position to tell who did what screaming and hollering,  but to me raining punches down on Zimmerman versus just trying to keep his arms pinned is a distinction with a difference.

Oh, it's a difference. But that John is only 50% certain there was hitting going on doesn't mean there wasn't hitting going on. It doesn't make the physical evidence of hitting going, GZ's injuries and the state's admission that TM hit GZ, magically disappear.

EDIT: Dang I need to type faster. RickyJim beat me last time and MJW did this time.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 12, 2013, 05:18:39 PM
...
It might very well make sense that Martin would try to pin Zimmerman's arms even if he knew nothing of the gun. It doesn't make sense that he'd be desperately screaming for help.

If he figured not keeping Zimmerman's arms pinned would result in Zimmerman using those arms to inflict a severe beating on him, I don't see why he wouldn't call for help, and I'm not sure he'd have been able to keep those arms pinned forever or would have believed that he could.  Martin's arms may have been longer, but that doesn't mean he had greater upper body strength.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: FromBelow on March 12, 2013, 05:24:48 PM
If he figured not keeping Zimmerman's arms pinned would result in Zimmerman using those arms to inflict a severe beating on him, I don't see why he wouldn't call for help, and I'm not sure he'd have been able to keep those arms pinned forever or would have believed that he could.  Martin's arms may have been longer, but that doesn't mean he had greater upper body strength.

Right, because the dominant guy that's beeen dominant for a minute or so, hasn't been injured and has made his opponent bloody, is afraid of a severe beating. Are you kidding me with this crap?
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: SuzieTampa on March 12, 2013, 05:51:45 PM
Returning to the subject of this thread: Cashill lost me as soon as I saw that he thought Obama has a "weakness for racial agitation." Although I disagree with a number of things Obama has said on race, I hardly consider him a racial agitator.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: FromBelow on March 12, 2013, 06:01:41 PM
Returning to the subject of this thread: Cashill lost me as soon as I saw that he thought Obama has a "weakness for racial agitation." Although I disagree with a number of things Obama has said on race, I hardly consider him a racial agitator.

Honestly, while I believe there is a political component to GZ's arrest and charge, I don't think this guy is involved in it or the case in general. I don't see much of a reason in discussing him, his views or his politics. But NMNM was right, the dominant conversation should be happening on the witness #6 thread. Can I use the defense that even Jeralyn seemingly went off topic?
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 12, 2013, 06:18:47 PM
Honestly, while I believe there is a political component to GZ's arrest and charge, I don't think this guy is involved in it or the case in general. I don't see much of a reason in discussing him, his views or his politics. But NMNM was right, the dominant conversation should be happening on the witness #6 thread. Can I use the defense that even Jeralyn seemingly went off topic?

I'm willing to stipulate that she led me astray.

 ;D
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 13, 2013, 06:54:33 AM
http://www.farmissues.com/photos/uploadimages/ofacd058a.JPG



 ;)  Their...heeee....rrrrreeeee.

 ;D   

 ;)
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 13, 2013, 07:08:14 AM
Continuing discussion of W-6 on W-6 thread. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2015.msg107632.html#msg107632)
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 14, 2013, 12:51:58 AM
I sometimes check S.I. Hayakawa's book Use the Right Word: A Modern Guide to Synonyms when I want to make sure a word means what I think it means.

I'm not familiar with that work.

I read Hayakawa's book on 'general semantics', lo these many years ago. (I looked him up to make sure it was the same person. I was thinking he represented Hawaii in the Senate, and might have been born there. Actually he represented California, and was born in Canada.)

I wonder if that book was intended to be used in the way you want. Its title doesn't identify it as a dictionary. It seems like more of a style guide than something intended to be an arbiter of 'correct' usage.

In any case, I know of no reason I should regard this book as having equal or superior authority to an unabridged Webster's dictionary.

If I did so regard it, I would still maintain that citing any reputable authority is sufficient defense against an allegation of incorrect usage.

Quote
It still applies to the reputation of a doctrine or ideology and is more forceful than retract in suggesting a total disavowing or abject capitulation, including an admission of past guilt and an implied promise to foreswear the error in the future.

I have to wonder if the author meant that use of the word suggests these things in all possible contexts, and that any other usage is incorrect. If he did, that is not consistent with my experience.

In that experience, the word 'recant' is commonly used for a witness retracting a statement. To me it feels like the most apt word, suitable to the gravity of matters that are or may be the subject of sworn testimony.

I think that usage is supported by adequate authority.

I have no quarrel with those who choose to use some other word themselves. I don't agree that 'recant' is technically incorrect, excessive in connotation, or 'loaded'.

Quote
If W6 admitted he had lied, and it was actually Zimmerman raining down blows on Martin, recant would apply.

Neither an admission of intentional deception, nor substitution of any particular alternative claim, or any such claim, is required for withdraw/repudiate/retract/recant to apply.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: MJW on March 14, 2013, 02:32:49 AM
I wonder if that book was intended to be used in the way you want. Its title doesn't identify it as a dictionary. It seems like more of a style guide than something intended to be an arbiter of 'correct' usage.

In any case, I know of no reason I should regard this book as having equal or superior authority to an unabridged Webster's dictionary.

It is a writing style guide, and is descriptive not prescriptive. It's similar a thesaurus, except it attempts to differentiate the shades of meaning between words that are more or less synonymous. Dictionaries sometimes do that in usage notes, but that's not their primary function.

Whether or not you agree with the book on the connotation of recant, you should at least be able to understand while some of us feel it's a loaded word. We have the authority of well-known linguist, along with the Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary Staff, who co-authored, in our corner.

In my experience, the word recant when applied to testimony is almost always confined to situations where the witness admits to lying, and completely reverses his or her testimony.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 14, 2013, 02:33:06 AM
In my experience, the word recant when applied to testimony is almost always confined to situations where the witness admits to lying, and complete reverses his or her testimony.

That is an entirely different point from what is stated in the entry from the book that you cited.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: MJW on March 14, 2013, 02:48:43 AM
That is an entirely different point from what is stated in the entry from the book that you cited.

No it's not. I'll repeat the book's comment:

Quote
It still applies to the reputation of a doctrine or ideology and is more forceful than retract in suggesting a total disavowing or abject capitulation, including an admission of past guilt and an implied promise to foreswear the error in the future.

That's directed more toward a belief than to testimony, but what short of a lie requires "total disavowing" of previous testimony, along with "abject capitulation," "an admission of past guilt and an implied promise to foreswear the error in the future"?
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 14, 2013, 02:58:55 AM
what short of a lie requires "total disavowing" of previous testimony, along with "abject capitulation," "an admission of past guilt and an implied promise to foreswear the error in the future"?

An error.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 14, 2013, 04:44:19 AM
There was no recanting by witness 6 or 13. Neither changed the most critical elements of their accounts.

Non sequitur.

Recanting an element less critical than the most critical elements of an account, is recanting.

W-13 had two 'pops' in his 2/26 SPD interview. (http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/zimmermanevidence/audio/W13_SPD02262012.wav) For FDLE on 3/20, it was one 'gunshot' and one noise that 'sounded like a grunt'. He wasn't sure which came first.

I still can't find W-13's FDLE interview anywhere except Axiom Amnesia.

Why did you bring up W-13? He hadn't been mentioned on the thread before.

In the post (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2349.msg107470.html#msg107470) that started this discussion, I mentioned W-6 recanting a specific statement, in support of a point about Jack Cashill, not about W-6 or his other statements.

The post I was referring to is called 'Why Florida Persists in the Zimmerman Prosecution'. I'm not linking it because I think it is problematical in other ways as well.

Quote
An hour after the shooting, Witness #6 told the Sanford Police Department (SPD) that he saw a "black man in a black hoodie on top of either a white guy. . . or an Hispanic guy in a red sweater on the ground yelling out help." According to #6, the black man on top was "throwing down blows on the guy MMA [mixed martial arts] style."

There are some minor errors in this part. Serino's report puts the interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89AQmMcvA7U) at 9:05, which is about an hour and 50 minutes after the shooting at 1:17. (38/184 (http://www.axiomamnesia.com/TrayvonMartinFiles/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-FULL-case-report-documents.pdf)).

The wording is off at a couple of points.

0:37-1:05
Quote
W-6: There was a black man with a black hoodie, on top of, either a white guy, or, now that I've found out, I think it was a Hispanic guy, with a read sweatshirt on, on the ground, yelling out "Help!" And then, you know, I tried to tell them, you know, "Get out of here!" you know, "Stop!" or whatever. And then, the one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just, throwing down blows on the guy, kinda MMA style.

Serino: Like a ground and pound? OK?

W-6: Yeah, like a ground and pound, on the concrete at this point.

The ellipsis is neither an error nor minor. It conceals the important information that W-6's account was influenced by hearsay very early. It might have been Serino himself, who also told W-18 his opinion of who was calling for help, or the officer who took W-6's written statement, or another witness.

The main point is that Cashill never mentioned W-6's FDLE (or SAO) interview, much less alerted them to his repudiation of the 'MMA' statement. In the overall context of his post, I think that is highly misleading.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 14, 2013, 04:57:38 AM
Although I disagree with a number of things Obama has said on race, I hardly consider him a racial agitator.

Sticking to what is relevant to the Zimmerman case, I think Obama's 'if I had a son' comment qualifies as agitation.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: MJW on March 14, 2013, 11:36:15 AM
An error.

That would have to be some error to require complete capitulation and an admission of past guilt. In any event, I was speaking of my experience in having heard the word used, and by saying "almost always," allowed for cases where it was used for non-lies.

You can, of course, continue to use recant to describe a witness qualifying or backing off from the certainty of prior testimony, and those of us who believe the word applies only to a much more forceful renunciation will continue to think you're using a loaded word.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 14, 2013, 09:14:44 PM
That would have to be some error to require complete capitulation and an admission of past guilt.

Take it up with Hayakawa.



Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: MJW on March 14, 2013, 09:24:57 PM
Take it up with Hayakawa.

Hayakawa is, I believe, referring to an error in professing a false doctrine, not an error of fact. And that will have to be my last word, since I've said everything I think I need to say on this issue.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 14, 2013, 10:01:38 PM
Hayakawa is, I believe, referring to an error in professing a false doctrine

That's my point.

'Error' usually means a belief sincerely held.

The other nouns Hayakawa used were heresy, doctrine, and ideology. All those words are neutral as to whether the beliefs are sincerely held.

Quote
not an error of fact.

I don't agree that this is a clear distinction. A matter of doctrine may also be a matter of fact. But that's getting way off topic.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 14, 2013, 10:35:28 PM
I sometimes check S.I. Hayakawa's book Use the Right Word: A Modern Guide to Synonyms when I want to make sure a word means what I think it means. Here's the entry for recant.

Recant once indicated the solemn retracting of a heresy by a former adherent. Witches were required to recant publicly or be hanged. It still applies to the reputation of a doctrine or ideology and is more forceful than retract in suggesting a total disavowing or abject capitulation, including an admission of past guilt and an implied promise to foreswear the error in the future: those who recanted Communism after the infamous nonaggression pact.

That's certainly how I interpret the word. If W6 admitted he had lied, and it was actually Zimmerman raining down blows on Martin, recant would apply. Saying he wasn't certain, not so much.

Are you sure that shouldn't be refutation and not reputation?

Anyway when I hear "recant" I pretty much immediately jump to "What you do to keep from being burned at the stake as a heretic, i.e., murdered painfully, by The Church".
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 14, 2013, 10:41:22 PM
Are you sure that shouldn't be refutation and not reputation?

I think it was supposed to be 'repudiation'.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 14, 2013, 11:02:06 PM
I think it was supposed to be 'repudiation'.

Or as it's listed in the New Revised Palin Edition, "refudiation".

 ;D
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: MJW on March 14, 2013, 11:06:19 PM
I think it was supposed to be 'repudiation'.

Yes, repudiation. I'll blame spell-check, since it can't defend itself.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 15, 2013, 02:13:08 AM
Yes, repudiation. I'll blame spell-check, since it can't defend itself.

I just blame my keyboard, since for years my pens and pencils were far better at spelling than it is.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 17, 2013, 07:44:07 PM
There was no recanting by witness 6 or 13.

I'm still curious about the unexplained introduction of W-13 into the discussion.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 18, 2013, 07:21:18 AM
I can see a spell check with the limited vocabulary most of them seem to have changing refutation to reputation as it's only one letter and spell check is not "does that word, even if it is a word and even if it is spelled correctly for that word, really work in the sentence?" capable.

So, potshots at Palin aside, I think refutation, i.e., what happens when someone refutes something, is the word that was intended.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: MJW on March 18, 2013, 01:43:23 PM
I can see a spell check with the limited vocabulary most of them seem to have changing refutation to reputation as it's only one letter and spell check is not "does that word, even if it is a word and even if it is spelled correctly for that word, really work in the sentence?" capable.

Firefox spell-check knows the word refutation, but the word I intended to type was repudiation. I was copying directly from the book. Spell-check should underline auto-changes like it does errors, but in a different color. Incorrect auto-changes are especially difficult to catch when proofreading, because being actual words, they don't stand out.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: unitron on March 18, 2013, 09:28:30 PM
Firefox spell-check knows the word refutation, but the word I intended to type was repudiation. I was copying directly from the book. Spell-check should underline auto-changes like it does errors, but in a different color. Incorrect auto-changes are especially difficult to catch when proofreading, because being actual words, they don't stand out.

So this wasn't cut and paste, this was read and type?

Well, then, you've just ruined your good repudiation as a transcriptionist.   ;D
Title: Re: Jack Cashill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: RickyJim on March 22, 2013, 05:33:16 PM
I am surprised nobody pointed out that the name is Cashill, not Cahill.  My apologies.  His latest piece (http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/how-to-start-a-race-war/#Mrz23um1PzJJaxqM.99) on the case make Matt Gutman the prime villain. 
Title: Re: Jack Cashill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 23, 2013, 02:56:57 AM
His latest piece (http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/how-to-start-a-race-war/#Mrz23um1PzJJaxqM.99) on the case make Matt Gutman the prime villain.

Cashill repeated the erroneous claim that W-6 was interviewed an hour after the shooting, and implied, incorrectly, that Serino interviewed W-6 before W-18 (37-38/184 (http://www.axiomamnesia.com/TrayvonMartinFiles/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-FULL-case-report-documents.pdf)).

Serino was briefed on arrival by Ayala (37/184). That probably included information from the written statements. (W-6's written statement is on 86/184.)

It's ridiculous that Cashill claims getting information from one witness is a 'good reason' for feeding that information to another witness.

Cashill failed to make what I think is the most important point about this episode. W-18 didn't claim to know who was screaming. She had just leaped to the conclusion that the person calling for help must have been the one shot. Serino did 'correct' her, but not the substance of her statement. That doesn't justify Serino's action, but it does mean that ABC's reporting was inaccurate, and made it seem worse than it was.

RJ, would you care to explain why you think this person is worth linking?
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 23, 2013, 03:12:42 AM
Cashill
Quote
In her defense, Cutcher could be forgiven for thinking that Martin was, in fact, “a little kid.” Team Trayvon had been feeding the media only child-like images of Martin, and the media had been spreading them uncritically.

Cashill wrote this in reference to the joint Cutcher/Mora telephone interview of 3/1/12, with no evidence that 'the media had been spreading' any images of Trayvon Martin by such an early date, before the story went national.

Every time this meme comes up I ask for such evidence, and I've yet to get an answer.
Title: Re: Jack Cashill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: RickyJim on March 23, 2013, 06:44:11 AM
RJ, would you care to explain why you think this person is worth linking?
Originally, I thought that any book coming out on the case was notable.  Then I noticed that he wrote another article which said all sorts of things, not all true as you point out, about Matt Gutman's reporting.  Since MG is a potential witness, I thought that notable.  Lastly, I felt I needed to correct my spelling error.  Unless I think he really has something good on the case, I won't link to him anymore.   :-[
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: leftwig on March 23, 2013, 08:41:07 AM
Cashill
Cashill wrote this in reference to the joint Cutcher/Mora telephone interview of 3/1/12, with no evidence that 'the media had been spreading' any images of Trayvon Martin by such an early date, before the story went national.

Every time this meme comes up I ask for such evidence, and I've yet to get an answer.

Yeah, he should have said that Cutcher/Mora made no mention of child like screams the night of the shooting either on Cutchers 911 call or Mora's statement to police (she said someone was yelling, almost crying).  He could speculate as to why Cutchers story was modified to include the child like whines to the media and question who set up the media interview for her, but the images of the 12 year old Trayvon that eventuall were "plastered all over the media" had not yet appeared.  Of course they did show up shortly after Cutcher made her public comments, so I think its possible her comments in the 3/1 interview were not coincidental to the images that later came out.  I think its possible Cuthcers public comments are related in someway (meaning collaboration, not just coincidence) to Gutmans reporting, but the only evidence I"ve seen is Julison (the publicist) being in the photo ops and interviews of Cutchers.  We don't know if/when Julison contacted her directly.  I think its possible Julison was feeding Gutman and was responsible for bringing out "modifications" to Cutchers narrative.

One thing that always bothered me about the revised Cutcher narrative that no one ever seemed to ask her is that if she and Mora heard this child screaming for help, why didn't they do a thing to help?  Their statements are that they went to look outside after hearing the gunshot.  Why would they look outside after hearing a gunshot, but do nothing while a supposed child was screaming for help in fear for 60 seconds or so?   I think the screams coming from a child was "concocted" later.  Not sure whether it was something they were just sitting around thinking about on their own, but it does seem likely that they would have been prompted to make them think it was a child.  No one else  mentions the screams sounding like they came from a child.  I do think it would be worthwhile for a reporter to explore.

Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 23, 2013, 09:03:17 AM
One thing that always bothered me about the revised Cutcher narrative that no one ever seemed to ask her is that if she and Mora heard this child screaming for help, why didn't they do a thing to help?  Their statements are that they went to look outside after hearing the gunshot.  Why would they look outside after hearing a gunshot, but do nothing while a supposed child was screaming for help in fear for 60 seconds or so? 

I don't know that Cutcher and Mora ever claimed to have heard the word 'help', or any words.

In their SPD interviews, they said explicitly that they couldn't distinguish any words. In their TV appearances, I think they avoided the point, allowing viewers to assume they heard 'help' because of what was known from other sources.

ETA: I don't know where you're getting '60 seconds'. On the the 911 recording it's about 45 seconds, and I don't know that Cutcher and Mora ever estimated a length of time.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: leftwig on March 23, 2013, 10:19:03 AM
The caller on the call that captured the screams said the screams happened before she called 911.  I think an estimate of 15 seconds to hear the screaming beginning, to picking up the phone to call,  to being connected with the operator to be reasonable.  Its possible it was a few seconds more or less, but clearly longer than what was captured on the 911 call.

I've read several articles saying Cutcher and Mora heard screams for help.  On looking back at those articles, it says the witnesses heard screams for help, but when quoting Cutchers words, it does just say she heard screaming or a child crying.  That at least some of the words were "help" is fairly easily discernible on the 911 call.  The more important point was that neither Cutcher or Mora mentioned that they thought the screams were from a child until their media interviews and if they thought a child was calling for help for a minute, why didn't they do anything?   She made comments about certain things she sure didn't happen because they would have easily heard them, so she was either making that point up or could hear the screaming quite clearly.  I tend to think its the former and they didn't really hear the screams that clearly and their media narrative was enhanced for whatever reason. 
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on March 23, 2013, 10:26:51 AM
Cashill
Cashill wrote this in reference to the joint Cutcher/Mora telephone interview of 3/1/12, with no evidence that 'the media had been spreading' any images of Trayvon Martin by such an early date, before the story went national.

Every time this meme comes up I ask for such evidence, and I've yet to get an answer.
The Orlando Sentinel was covering the story by 2/29/12, and Fox 35 Orlando had reported on it even earlier:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-02-29/news/os-fatal-shooting-sanford-townhomes-20120226_1_gated-community-death-sunday-night-shot

There's a box in the article that has a link that no longer works (at least there is on my computer); it appears to have had a photo sourced from Facebook, captioned "Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot to death in Sanford Sunday, February 26, 2012, police say."

The excuse given for the circulation of the "Hollister" picture is that it was the first one given out by TM's family (not sure which member allegedly provided it) because they were pressed by the media for a photo and it was the only one they had handy.

Could the "Hollister" photo have been the one originally in the article linked above? If so, could that have been what made Cutcher say "a little kid" on 3/1/12?
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 23, 2013, 11:36:41 AM
The caller on the call that captured the screams said the screams happened before she called 911.

W-11, SPD, 3/2, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2tTr2gEGg&feature=related) 1:07-23
Quote
W-11: While I was calling, the scuffling kinda turned to like a, one man was yelling, kinda like a "heah, heah," not a "help" yell, but just yelling. And so, then those yells kinda turned to "help, help, help." And at that point I was already on the phone with nine one one.

W-20, SPD, 3/2, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJXcT-r4MiI&feature=relmfu) 2:13-23
Quote
W-20: [W-11] was already on the phone with the cops, right from the get-go, when we kinda started hearing the, before the "help"s, it was kind of [unintelligible] "ha, ha". She was already trying to call the cops.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 23, 2013, 11:59:58 AM
The Orlando Sentinel was covering the story by 2/29/12, and Fox 35 Orlando had reported on it even earlier:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-02-29/news/os-fatal-shooting-sanford-townhomes-20120226_1_gated-community-death-sunday-night-shot

There's a box in the article that has a link that no longer works (at least there is on my computer); it appears to have had a photo sourced from Facebook, captioned "Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot to death in Sanford Sunday, February 26, 2012, police say."

Thanks.

I don't see the box or the link.

There's a thread (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2101.0.html) on the earliest reports.

Actually, the very first report happened that night, Feb 26, as a breaking news story. It was at 7PM. (less than 45 minutes after the shooting.)

[Snip]

Looks like they scrubbed it as well.

In the next post Who007 corrected the time to 8PM.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: who007 on March 23, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
Thanks.

I don't see the box or the link.

There's a thread (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2101.0.html) on the earliest reports.

In the next post Who007 corrected the time to 8PM.

Thanks for remembering me. :)

Yes, I watched that First Report several times, and yes, it was scrapped.

I saw just now people were looking for it, so I went to the Way Back Machine, and was able to get a screen shot using that url.   

Here it is (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/z-first-report_zps70cf5491.jpg):

Published Feb. 26, 8:03PM
Updated 10:44PM

[Edited by TalkLeft, picture was too big for space. Please preview before posting. ]
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: leftwig on March 24, 2013, 08:03:00 AM
W-11, SPD, 3/2, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2tTr2gEGg&feature=related) 1:07-23
W-20, SPD, 3/2, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJXcT-r4MiI&feature=relmfu) 2:13-23

Compare and contrast that with her written statement the night of the shooting (p 84 for her, 103 for him).  Her statement was brief, but was very specific that they heard a verbal exchange and scuffling then yelling for help before calling 911.  Given his interpretation that they thought it was just kids messing around until they heard the distress in the voice, it makes much more sense that they didn't call 911 until the screams raised the seriousness of the issue with them.  You are welcome to believe they called 911 before any distressed screams occurred.  I do not.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 24, 2013, 10:39:29 AM
Compare and contrast that with her written statement the night of the shooting (p 84 for her, 103 for him).  Her statement was brief, but was very specific that they heard a verbal exchange and scuffling then yelling for help before calling 911. 

You are misrepresenting her statement by making up the word 'then'.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: DebFrmHell on March 24, 2013, 11:38:26 AM
You are misrepresenting her statement by making up the word 'then'.

And? 

Or are you just bing NMNM again?   :o :D
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 24, 2013, 11:52:05 AM
And? 

And W-11's 2/26 written statement is not at all specific, let alone 'very specific', about the temporal relationship between what she heard and her 911 call. Hence, it does not contradict her 3/2 SPD interview on this point.
Title: Re: Jack Cahill Working on Book About the Case
Post by: leftwig on March 24, 2013, 01:48:11 PM
And W-11's 2/26 written statement is not at all specific, let alone 'very specific', about the temporal relationship between what she heard and her 911 call. Hence, it does not contradict her 3/2 SPD interview on this point.

Its somewhat specific.  Heard scuffling and yelling (no specific order of which these were heard).  Man STARTED yelling help, period end of sentence.  ["then" added due to period break indicating new thought or action]. We called 911.  Believe what you like, but no need to misrepresent he written statement.