TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Evidence Discussion => Topic started by: RickyJim on December 13, 2012, 11:48:25 AM

Title: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 13, 2012, 11:48:25 AM
I do have an idea for a worthwhile thread.  Just how would the prosecution present their case?  They have to go first and can't call Zimmerman.  Just who would they call to present what evidence?  Might be worth a Jeralyn article on the main site.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 13, 2012, 02:45:39 PM
I guess we could start out by discussing what they need to show for various charges.  I think without FBI corroboration of some sort of racial animus or proving that it was TM pleading for his life on the 911 call, murder 2 is pretty much out the window.  I think GZ's conversation with the dispatcher doesn't sound like someone about to go on a murderous rampage or even to take justice into their own hands and the I don't see any evidence for them proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was TM screaming for help.

So to get a charge of manslaughter, what does the state have to show?  Obviously they would have to get over any statute that provides immunity to GZ.  To do that, they would have to show that GZ was the initial aggressor, that TM and GZ were trading blows in a mutual/fair fight before GZ shot him and or that TM stopped his attack and was leaving the conflict before GZ shot him.  I think the injuries (GZ's extensive ones and TM's lack of) remove #2 and witness testimony and forensics on the distance of the shot removes #3.  That leaves showing GZ the aggressor.  They will start with GZ getting out of his car and uttering expletives about Martin.  This does set a table for GZ as the aggressor, but I dont think it gets them there as the defense will show that GZ didn't get out of his car while Martin was near him, but only after he left (confrontation avoidance) and that GZ was calmly talking to the dispatcher after TM was out of sight.  They will probably try to introduce GZ's past "violent" behavior with the restraining order by the ex and incident with police in '05.  I wouldn't go as far as to say they are irrelevant, but I doubt they are allowed into evidence. 

That pretty much leaves Dee Dee's testimony who was an ear witness to the initial confrontation.  I think if you take everything she says at 100% face value and true, I think its close on whether this shows GZ as the aggressor.  She doesn't detail GZ running after TM or cornering him or coming at him with gun drawn.  She has GZ following TM for a short period where TM refuses to run and has TM verbally confronting GZ first.  She does report bumping sounds with she attributes to GZ hitting TM, but I dont' see how that passes muster and make it into evidence due to speculation ("I heard bumping sounds" is all that will make it).  That leaves the "little bit of get off" that she thinks she makes out as TM's voice which could show GZ attacking TM. 

If they can't get over immunity, then they have to prove that GZ didn't fear great bodily harm or for his life.  The police report says GZ's injuries are marginally consistent with someone fearing for their lives, so I think that coupled with the photo images and screams for help captured on the 911 call make that a tough task.

I'm not sure what else the prosecution has.  If GZ takes the stand, they surely will try to attack his credibility with inconsistencies in his statements.  This might work against GZ in the immunity hearing where he has the burden of proof, but in the criminal trial, there isn't any evidence in his testimony that shows him starting anything or that would make one consider that he wasn't in great fear for his life.  I'd bet on GZ testifying at an immunity hearing, I'd highly doubt he would at trial.  I'd give the prosecution a small chance at winning an immunity hearing (maybe 20%), but I don't see any way with the evidence in the record to date (which includes very little from the defense) that they get a conviction on any charge.  Once the emotion of a dead teen is put aside, there just isn't much evidence against him and quite a bit for him.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 13, 2012, 03:00:19 PM
The police report says GZ's injuries are marginally consistent with someone fearing for their lives

Opinion. I doubt that will be admissible.

Quote
I'd bet on GZ testifying at an immunity hearing, I'd highly doubt he would at trial. 

If Zimmerman testifies at the immunity hearing, I think anything damaging he says on cross will be admissible at the trial, as a voluntary statement against interest.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 13, 2012, 06:13:06 PM
Opinion. I doubt that will be admissible.

If Zimmerman testifies at the immunity hearing, I think anything damaging he says on cross will be admissible at the trial, as a voluntary statement against interest.

I don't think that he will have to testify.  They have enough evidence to prove the preponderance since the level is lower.

And I firmly believe that he should stay off the stand unless something drastic requires him to go there.  He comes across poorly.  And that makes him extremely dislikable.  He may be golden in real life but interviews and cross are not his forte.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 13, 2012, 09:07:29 PM
Am I correct in thinking that the prosecution could get any phone calls or interviews of Zimmerman played as part of their case when they call the other person on the line or the interviewer to the stand?  I don't think they could play excerpts;  it would be all of the tape or none.  I think that in their closing summary they could play a series of excerpts or put up partial transcripts, one  after the other, in order to point out contradictions.  It doesn't look very easy to pull off and keep the jury's attention.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: TalkLeft on December 13, 2012, 11:26:21 PM
Ricky, this topic does not belong in court matters. I'm moving it to the Evidence thread.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 14, 2012, 06:57:56 PM
Profile, chase, confront, kill...

How would they prove that he was criminally profiling Trayvon Martin?
How could they prove that there was a chase?
How would they prove that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation?

Zimmerman admitted to shooting Martin.  Kill does not equal Justifiable Homicide. 

Zimmerman has the documented injuries from the altercation, both photographic and written.  Supported by LE, EMTs, and a PA. 

He has two adult witnesses that place Martin on top of him. 

The angle of entry for the bullet is from left to right (and I think a slightly downward path, IANAD, which shows that Martin was leaning over him.)

Martin had an abrasion on a knuckle.  And a gunshot wound.

Until the Prosecution can come up with a reasonable explanation as to how Martin found himself back at that "T" intersection after being off of Zimmerman's radar for roughly four minutes...without DOUBLING BACK, LAYING IN WAIT, or some combination of both, Zimmerman will have a firm Self Defense case.

However Martin got to where he ended up shows intent on his behalf. 

The AZ can was in his pocket but when last seen it was placed into the plastic bag that was found on the sidewalk.  Otherwise the can would be a part of the "debris field."

The photo button wasn't tested for any kind of gunshot residue and I assume that was returned with some of his other personal effects.  The bullet hole in the garments are in the approx area of where that button was.  It was reported to be in his pocket.  I believe that to be true.  If there was some evidence of gun powder or other residue it would have been tested.

I think a case can be made that Trayvon Martin was securing these items in that pocket in an effort to free both of his hands prior to approaching Zimmerman and asking him if he had an effing problem.

Intent.

I have never believed that "Why are you following me?"  "What are you doing around here?" were the fighting words that triggered all of this.  Just as Zimmerman said, "I don't have a problem"  I can see an Eff-Bomb being thrown in there, also.  Both were known to use that language if you go by the social media of both. 

It is just too sanitized to be real, IMO.  W8 in an effort to protect her friend and Zimmerman in self-preservation mode.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 14, 2012, 08:23:14 PM
However Martin got to where he ended up shows intent on his behalf. 

How do you know his intention wasn't to ask Zimmerman to explain himself?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 14, 2012, 08:47:37 PM
He has two adult witnesses that place Martin on top of him.

You mean Zimmerman himself, or W-3?

Quote
Martin had an abrasion on a knuckle.

On a finger between the knuckles.

Quote
The photo button wasn't tested for any kind of gunshot residue and I assume that was returned with some of his other personal effects.

I wouldn't expect it to be returned until after the trial.

Quote
It was reported to be in his pocket.

Not by the person who found it, as far as we know. That is probably ME Investigator Tara Mulphers. Last I heard no written report from her had appeared in the discovery.

The one log entry that put the button and the phone in Martin's pockets is contradicted by all other pertinent evidence. I am confident it will turn out to be an error.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 14, 2012, 08:51:58 PM


On a finger between the knuckles.




IIRC, on the flat between the big knuckle (closest to the hand) and the middle knuckle. In other words--right on the part that impacts when a punch is thrown.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 14, 2012, 09:11:23 PM
You mean Zimmerman himself, or W-3?

John, W3 and Austin Green the minor that I never include.  Zimmerman, I exclude because even though his statement is evidence I am looking for other sources. 

On a finger between the knuckles.

I am off by a quarter inch...sue me.  LOL.

I wouldn't expect it to be returned until after the trial.

I would think that it has been, along with the money and the lighter.  I asked GZLegal via Tweet if the button was tested but never got any answer.  No surprise there.  Who knows?

Not by the person who found it, as far as we know. That is probably ME Investigator Tara Mulphers. Last I heard no written report from her had appeared in the discovery.

The one log entry that put the button and the phone in Martin's pockets is contradicted by all other pertinent evidence. I am confident it will turn out to be an error.

Until it is determined to be an error, your confidence is the same as mine.   Speculation.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 14, 2012, 09:47:31 PM
John, W3 and Austin Green the minor that I never include.

That's Austin Brown, or McLendon.

Please let us not confuse the Browns and the Greens.

Austin saw only Zimmerman.

W-3 saw a 'white T-shirt', and no other identifying details. Everyone else describes Martin's hoodie as dark gray.

W-3 also said something about the person in the hoodie also being the one who was handcuffed.

I'm afraid it's down to W-6. Fortunately, he's very credible.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 14, 2012, 11:53:44 PM
Austin saw only Zimmerman.

W-3 saw a 'white T-shirt', and no other identifying details. Everyone else describes Martin's hoodie as dark gray.

W-3 also said something about the person in the hoodie also being the one who was handcuffed.

I'm afraid it's down to W-6. Fortunately, he's very credible.

They still help show Zimmerman was the one on the bottom and Martin the one on the top. Even though Austin only saw one person, he saw someone in a  red top on the ground, and thought he might be injured. W3 said the one on the top wore a white T-shirt, but she also said the one in the white T-shirt was later laying face down, as if asleep on the ground. She identified Zimmerman as wearing a reddish colored coat, not a white T-shirt. Unless there were more people scuffling than just Zimmerman and Martin, the one she identified as being on top and later face down had to have been Martin.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 15, 2012, 12:01:07 AM
She identified Zimmerman as wearing a reddish colored coat, not a white T-shirt.

When did she say that?

It contradicts her 911 call, in which she said she couldn't discern anything about the person on the bottom.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 15, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
When did she say that?

It contradicts her 911 call, in which she said she couldn't discern anything about the person on the bottom.

In the interview with T.C. O'Steen, page 31 of the 284 page discovery PDF:

Quote
"She saw Zimmerman far down from her. He had a reddish colored coat on and was handcuffed."
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 15, 2012, 04:38:15 AM
That's Austin Brown, or McLendon.

Please let us not confuse the Browns and the Greens.

Austin saw only Zimmerman.

W-3 saw a 'white T-shirt', and no other identifying details. Everyone else describes Martin's hoodie as dark gray.

W-3 also said something about the person in the hoodie also being the one who was handcuffed.

I'm afraid it's down to W-6. Fortunately, he's very credible.

Sorry about the mixup in colors Brown/Green.  Sloppy on my behalf.

That is not exactly true.  W3 does say that the person on top was in white but she distinguishes Zimmerman as being in red when he is with LE.  To me, she is talking about two different people.

I would think there is something to be said about poor lighting, the light refractions and misty weather conditions to make that dark hoodie look so light.  It certainly photographed much lighter.

I agree.  W6 is very credible.

BUT, even w/o a witness Zimmerman still has the injuries, witness reports of the altercation moving from north to south, and the prosecution has admitted that Martin hit Zimmerman at some stage while also saying they have no idea who started the physical fight.

I don't see anything big that contradicts the narrative.  I am not including W8 simply because I think she can be easily impeached.  So the "chase" boils down to a witness who couldn't describe any distinguishing feature that would place one person in front of the other.

MJW!   Thank you for providing the link.

IMO.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 15, 2012, 06:36:06 AM
The one log entry that put the button and the phone in Martin's pockets is contradicted by all other pertinent evidence.

Oops. I meant the button and the earphones, of course.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 15, 2012, 09:47:50 AM
Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/george-zimmermans-dna-problem/2012/09/30/40605a58-0a46-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html) is an attempt to make a case that the DNA evidence implies Zimmerman's guilt.  Assuming they get the test results Capehart mentions in during their case, can somebody here fashion an argument that can be used by the prosecution during closing summation that helps them prove it wasn't self defense?  Thanks.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 15, 2012, 10:16:24 AM
Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/george-zimmermans-dna-problem/2012/09/30/40605a58-0a46-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html) is an attempt to make a case that the DNA evidence implies Zimmerman's guilt.  Assuming they get the test results Capehart mentions in during their case, can somebody here fashion an argument that can be used by the prosecution during closing summation that helps them prove it wasn't self defense?  Thanks.

Why would Capehart (follow his politics to see why he's writing the way he's writing) or anyone else expect  DNA on GZ? GZ was the one doing all the bleeding. I don't see how the prosecution could use that at all, but BDLR has surprised me with his attempts to pull of some stupid stuff so far....

I also don't believe they could suddenly pull out DNA in the summation. I could be wrong of course...but I doubt it (I doubt both statements).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 15, 2012, 10:33:29 AM
I also don't believe they could suddenly pull out DNA in the summation. I could be wrong of course...but I doubt it (I doubt both statements).

My post assumed that the technician, who did the tests, would testify what the results were during the prosecution case.  Now tell me why the prosecution couldn't give their interpretation of them during their closing summary.  Thanks.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 15, 2012, 11:37:11 AM
My post assumed that the technician, who did the tests, would testify what the results were during the prosecution case.  Now tell me why the prosecution couldn't give their interpretation of them during their closing summary.  Thanks.

If they came in during the trial and if they say what Capeheart prays for every night, and if the DNA tech testifies--why does the prosecution need to give an interpretation during their close? The only thing they'd need to do at that point is remind the jury.

If the DNA tech testifies to something other than what Capeheart's wet dream is, and the matter is hashed out on direct and cross and maybe even re-direct, then the prosecution couldn't very well attempt to spin the results in any other way.

So I guess I have no idea what you're driving at. And I'm not sure you do either.


Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 15, 2012, 11:38:17 AM
My post assumed that the technician, who did the tests, would testify what the results were during the prosecution case.  Now tell me why the prosecution couldn't give their interpretation of them during their closing summary.  Thanks.

PS: Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
 ;) ;D
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 15, 2012, 11:40:49 AM
Capehart's theory is what, exactly? That someone other than Martin inflicted the multiple injuries? That's all the DNA evidence he cites supposedly shows.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 15, 2012, 11:56:24 AM
If they came in during the trial and if they say what Capeheart prays for every night, and if the DNA tech testifies--why does the prosecution need to give an interpretation during their close? The only thing they'd need to do at that point is remind the jury.

If the DNA tech testifies to something other than what Capeheart's wet dream is, and the matter is hashed out on direct and cross and maybe even re-direct, then the prosecution couldn't very well attempt to spin the results in any other way.

So I guess I have no idea what you're driving at. And I'm not sure you do either.

There are facts which you hear during the testimony stage of a trial and there are deductions from the facts which are heard during the concluding summaries from the advocates.  The prosecution would try to argue that from the facts (a technician did some tests and reported these were the results), one can conclude that they make it more likely that Zimmerman didn't kill in self defense than it would be if those facts weren't there.  I was asking what that prosecution argument might be.  Of course that would be only part of what they might present to establish proof that it wasn't self defense.


Maybe Jeralyn can step in and help explain to you what evidence is all about.   >:(
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 15, 2012, 01:22:08 PM
Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/george-zimmermans-dna-problem/2012/09/30/40605a58-0a46-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html) is an attempt to make a case that the DNA evidence implies Zimmerman's guilt.

Capehart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/jonathan-capehart/2011/02/24/AB1tR7I_page.html) 'is a member of the Post editorial board and writes about politics and social issues for the PostPartisan blog.' That's a long way from being a forensics expert. I don't understand why Capehart gets so much attention.

In the column, Capehart only mentions one source he consulted on interpreting the evidence. That source is a former prosecutor, so also not a forensic specialist. Could Capehart not find one person who actually works in the field to say what he wanted? How much shopping did it take to find the source he did use?

The column doesn't mention the effect of the rain. The rain would wash away particulate evidence and, as Redbrow has pointed out, dampness promotes the multiplication of DNA-devouring bacteria. If Capehart asked his consulant how a rainy environment wold affect his analysis, he must not have liked the answers.

Near the beginning, this:
Quote
Despite claims that Trayvon grabbed Zimmerman’s gun (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/20/3012853/zimmermans-friend-trayvon-grabbed.html), Trayvon’s DNA was not found on the weapon or its holster.

Whose claims?

The link reveals that the 'claims' are those of Mark Osterman, not Zimmerman or his defense team. The subtitle of the book review is:

Quote
A new book written by George Zimmerman’s best friend offers a sharply different account of the night Trayvon Martin died.

It's fifth sentence is:

Quote
Zimmerman never said that to the police.

This bit of disingenousness, and Capehart's incuriosity about the forensic impact of rain, together destroy Capehart's credibility in my opinion.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 15, 2012, 01:55:07 PM
The odd thing about Osterman's version of events as told in the book is that it doesn't match what he told FDLE investigator David Lee in the April 26 interview shown on page 78 of the 284 page PDF. According to that interview, Zimmerman told Osterman that Martin reached for the gun, but Zimmerman slapped his hand away, and pulled the gun. There's nothing to suggest Martin ever had procession of the gun or even touched it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 15, 2012, 03:46:51 PM

In the interview with T.C. O'Steen, page 31 of the 284 page discovery PDF:
Quote
"She saw Zimmerman far down from her. He had a reddish colored coat on and was handcuffed."

A different time, maybe different lighting.

W-6 at one point said he wasn't sure if Zimmerman's garment was red or white. (3:24-44) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvBZicWPDE)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 15, 2012, 03:53:05 PM
There are facts which you hear during the testimony stage of a trial and there are deductions from the facts which are heard during the concluding summaries from the advocates.  The prosecution would try to argue that from the facts (a technician did some tests and reported these were the results), one can conclude that they make it more likely that Zimmerman didn't kill in self defense than it would be if those facts weren't there.  I was asking what that prosecution argument might be.  Of course that would be only part of what they might present to establish proof that it wasn't self defense.


Maybe Jeralyn can step in and help explain to you what evidence is all about.   >:(

I have a fairly decent grasp of what it is, thanks though.
Once again, you've gotten so hung up in the minutiae you fail to actually grasp the big picture. Summations are exactly that. Why do you believe a prosecutor would use their summation to go back and put a shine on evidence already chewed over, beyond just ...you know...summarizing it along with the rest of the case?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 15, 2012, 05:53:36 PM
A different time, maybe different lighting.

The point is, because in the same interview in which she said the person in the white T-shirt was on top, she also said Zimmerman was in red, she could not have believed Zimmerman was the person on top. She also said the person in the white T-shirt was the one she saw laying face down in the grass. Though the interview summary does not explicitly indicate the person on top was the person who was later shot, there's no other reasonable conclusion, and I have little doubt she would testify to that in court.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 15, 2012, 06:25:29 PM
I have a fairly decent grasp of what it is, thanks though.
Once again, you've gotten so hung up in the minutiae you fail to actually grasp the big picture. Summations are exactly that. Why do you believe a prosecutor would use their summation to go back and put a shine on evidence already chewed over, beyond just ...you know...summarizing it along with the rest of the case?

The summation is where they try to make a theory that explains a jumble of facts that may have been presented over a period of months to a judge or jury.  I think summation is the only place they could point out that what Zimmerman said on the NEN call contradicts some later statement.  I don't think they could present a spreadsheet in their case in chief where they show all the ways Zimmerman gave different versions of the same event.  Only in summation can they say, these contradictions, and this DNA and this ballistics evidence show Zimmerman probably didn't fire in self defense or it is beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.  One of the ideas I had in mind in starting this thread was to find out how they might make this final deduction.  I never see it in the anti-Zimmerman screeds, like Capehart's.  They just assume that it is obvious that the evidence they cite proves Zimmerman's guilt.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 16, 2012, 09:43:25 AM
I am trying to come up with the state's summation at the immunity hearing.  I will make the assumption that all they need to do is show that the evidence that Zimmerman shot in self defense is no better than in equipoise.  In particular, they don't have to present any evidence of malicious intent or bias on Zimmerman's part or whatever would justify a second degree murder charge at trial.  If I am wrong about that I am sure I will find out soon enough.  ;)  I am also leaving DeeDee out of this since at this moment it is unclear if she will be called.  I also assume that the jury will be ignorant of what the prosecution claimed and presented at the immunity hearing.  Imagine the following in 36pt, red, all caps, bold, italic and underlined in order to better simulate Bernie's presentation.  ;D

Your honor, first I want to point out that it was at least as likely that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor as it was Martin.  Zimmerman left the safety of his truck shortly after he says Martin circled it with hostile intent.  He tells us that he was so fearful of confrontation that he wouldn't open the window part way to explain his business to Martin.  But still when the police dispatcher suggested he return to his vehicle, he kept going through the cut through to Retreat View Circle to get an address he says, for the police to meet him at, yet he never got the address and finally told the dispatcher to have the police call him when they arrived.  This clearly shows he wasn't concerned so much for his safety.  The hunt was on and he smelled meat.  As he was getting out of his truck, he told the dispatcher that Martin was running for the back entrance.  If he really wanted a good view of that he could have quickly driven close to the back entrance to head Martin off and more easily given the police directions where to meet him.  No, your honor, Zimmerman was so blinded by rage that another asshole would get away that he got out of his truck with his gun in his jacket pocket.  He told us that when Martin appeared out of the darkness, he searched for his cellphone to call 911 which he claimed was in his jacket pocket.  What he was really reaching for was the gun.  How the heck was he going to get a 911 call in with this guy he claimed he was in fear of close by?  Trayvon being at the "T" at that moment, when he could have been home, doesn't show aggressive intent on his part; he may really have wanted to know why he was being followed.  Thus we argue that the initial aggression was by Zimmerman.

In the following fight, your honor, the evidence is certainly in equipoise as to who is screaming for help.  The FBI says it can't be scientifically determined and the relatives and friends all say it is their man crying for his life.  Yes, Zimmerman was injured but not Martin, before the fatal shot.  We feel that indicates that Zimmerman was so intent on holding onto his gun, trying for the fatal shot, that he didn't defend himself.  He knew he wasn't in mortal danger from Martin.  He had the gun and his injuries were much less than he claimed later.  The best eyewitness, W#6, said he couldn't tell whether Martin was raining down blows MMA style or simply trying to hold down Zimmerman's wrists.  Thus your honor, it is not more likely than not that Zimmerman fired in self defense and this case should be decided by a jury.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 16, 2012, 09:59:43 AM
Well, you have managed to capture BDLR's misstating the facts of the case. BTW, from what I understand being the initial aggressor doesn't exclude immunity if you can show that one or both of the two exceptions to the aggressor statute are true. However, I'm not sure how sympathetic a judge or jury would be if it's found the defendant was the initial aggressor. It certainly doesn't seem right to me that such a person should get off without any consequence at all. Anyway, keep in mind that what you wrote is filled with speculation. I don't know how much weight a judge will give it in an immunity hearing since it's not actual evidence. We may find out since theory and speculation seem to be all the state has.

Quote
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 16, 2012, 10:22:20 AM
In particular, they don't have to present any evidence of malicious intent or bias on Zimmerman's part or whatever would justify a second degree murder charge at trial. 

I think you are right.

Early in the case, I looked up the pertinent Florida statutes. That included the notorious SYG laws, and the degrees of homicide.

As I read the statutes, the elements of justifiable use of deadly force are the same for all classes of homicide. What the prosecution intends to charge at trial has no bearing on the immunity hearing.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 16, 2012, 11:09:31 AM
I am also leaving DeeDee out of this since at this moment it is unclear if she will be called.

I'm not aware of any indication that the prosecution is hesitant about calling Dee Dee. You can speculate that they won't, but that's true of any witness.

I don't think the prosecution is going to concede that there is any problem with Dee Dee's credibility. I think they will call her, and rely heavily on her testimony in their closing arguments.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 16, 2012, 11:21:48 AM
I'm not aware of any indication that the prosecution is hesitant about calling Dee Dee. You can speculate that they won't, but that's true of any witness.

I don't think the prosecution is going to concede that there is any problem with Dee Dee's credibility. I think they will call her, and rely heavily on her testimony in their closing arguments.

I should have said that the Crump/Gutman tape might so change our perception of what DeeDee's testimony will be that I will withhold for now trying to factor her input into the prosecution's argument.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 16, 2012, 11:58:02 AM
I'm not aware of any indication that the prosecution is hesitant about calling Dee Dee. You can speculate that they won't, but that's true of any witness.

I don't think the prosecution is going to concede that there is any problem with Dee Dee's credibility. I think they will call her, and rely heavily on her testimony in their closing arguments.

She will be called as a witness at the immunity hearing, correct?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 16, 2012, 12:07:18 PM
I don't think the prosecution is going to concede that there is any problem with Dee Dee's credibility. I think they will call her, and rely heavily on her testimony in their closing arguments.

She will be called as a witness at the immunity hearing, correct?

I think she will be called at the immunity hearing, and at the trial if there is one.

If she turns out to be an utter disaster for the prosecution at the immunity hearing, the defense may call her at the trial.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 16, 2012, 01:27:43 PM
One problem DeeDee poses for the state is she negates the argument RickyJim makes that Martin was at the "T" to ask Zimmerman why he was following him. That's not consistent with the terrified Martin in DeeDee's tale. So how does the  prosecution explain why Martin was at the "T" instead of safely at home?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 16, 2012, 01:31:17 PM
Can the prosecution both have DeeDee's testimony and admit that Martin and Zimmerman met up at the "T"?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 16, 2012, 01:37:23 PM
Can the prosecution both have DeeDee's testimony and admit that Martin and Zimmerman met up at the "T"?

I think they've got to try to thread that needle, but I'm not sure how they'll do it. So far, the state hasn't committed to a well-defined theory of what occurred.
Title: Re: Ricky Jim's scerio discussion
Post by: jeanmarc8 on December 16, 2012, 02:25:41 PM
For RickyJim: I don’t see that your scenario can progress to the point to justify TM sitting on top of GZ’s chest/abdomen, with the injuries already inflicted. That positioning alone seems egregious to me, particularly with TM's lack of de-confliction when the witnesses arrived. That positioning would support the response with lethal force in self defense, in my view, but IANAL.
Title: Re: Ricky Jim's scerio discussion
Post by: RickyJim on December 16, 2012, 02:45:30 PM
For RickyJim: I don’t see that your scenario can progress to the point to justify TM sitting on top of GZ’s chest/abdomen, with the injuries already inflicted. That positioning alone seems egregious to me, particularly with TM's lack of de-confliction when the witnesses arrived. That positioning would support the response with lethal force in self defense, in my view, but IANAL.
I covered that in the post.  The argument was that Martin, was desperately trying to pin Zimmerman's arm with the gun down.  Remember that I am only trying to give an argument to show it was no more than 50-50 it was self defense.  It wouldn't even be submitted to the jury if that is all the prosecution argues at trial.  I am totally at a loss when trying to imagine how they will close the gap to "beyond a reasonable doubt".  But we have 7 months to figure that one out.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 17, 2012, 11:39:04 PM
Can the prosecution both have DeeDee's testimony and admit that Martin and Zimmerman met up at the "T"?

I think they've got to try to thread that needle, but I'm not sure how they'll do it.

I have an idea of how they will do it. I'm not sure we're allowed to discuss it here.

I think they will play the racism card. When confronted with a question they can't answer, they will declare, or insinuate, that it's 'racist' to raise the question. The media will have their backs, including making the accusation openly in cases where the prosecutors feel it is prudent only to insinuate.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 07:36:57 AM
I find myself mystified by your post NMNM.  Are you saying anytime the defense shows a contradiction between DeeDee's account of what she thought Travyon told her and other evidence, the prosecution rebuttal will be to say only racists see a contradiction?   :o   Do you have a particular example in mind?
Title: Re: Ricky Jim's scerio discussion
Post by: Lousy1 on December 18, 2012, 07:46:41 AM
I covered that in the post.  The argument was that Martin, was desperately trying to pin Zimmerman's arm with the gun down. .  But we have 7 months to figure that one out.

The testimony of Witness 6 is inconsistent with TM trying to wrest a gun from GZ.

If he was trying to deflect the gun on disarm GZ  any person in Martin's position would focus on  grabbing the gun hand / wrist / arm with both hands with all force he could muster.
A trial would be a miscarriage of justice
Title: Re: Ricky Jim's scerio discussion
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 08:26:57 AM
The testimony of Witness 6 is inconsistent with TM trying to wrest a gun from GZ.

If he was trying to deflect the gun on disarm GZ  any person in Martin's position would focus on  grabbing the gun hand / wrist / arm with both hands with all force he could muster.
A trial would be a miscarriage of justice

Could you be more specific on the inconsistency with Witness 6?  The transcript of his FDLE interview is here (http://talkleft.com/zimm/witness6transcriptmarch20.pdf).  On page 41 and 42 this witness says
Quote
I mean he could have still been hitting him or he could have been trying to hold him down, you know, I really can't tell you at that point.
Quote
Um, but thinking back on it, you know, it could just been him trying to hold him down, too, and keep him secure.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 18, 2012, 09:14:09 AM
Opinion. I doubt that will be admissible.

If Zimmerman testifies at the immunity hearing, I think anything damaging he says on cross will be admissible at the trial, as a voluntary statement against interest.

I would think the officer issuing the capias request would be allowed to testify about the how or why he came to the conclusion to issue the arrest.  I imagine the prosecution will ask him questions about his opinion of what led to his conclusion of a manslaughter charge and the defense will ask questions about statements that seem to contradict that charge.

I agree, if it were a general question to any law enforcement officer on the scene or involved in the case, but I would think Serino would be allowed to testify on the statement given he issue the capias.

IANAL, but I thought I recalled reading early on that if GZ testifies at the immunity hearing what he says can be brought up at trial only if he also testifies at trial.  I do not know the pertinent statute and I imagine a lawyer familiar with immunity hearings could provide a quick answer.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 18, 2012, 09:24:21 AM
I am trying to come up with the state's summation at the immunity hearing.  I will make the assumption that all they need to do is show that the evidence that Zimmerman shot in self defense is no better than in equipoise.  In particular, they don't have to present any evidence of malicious intent or bias on Zimmerman's part or whatever would justify a second degree murder charge at trial.  If I am wrong about that I am sure I will find out soon enough.  ;)  I am also leaving DeeDee out of this since at this moment it is unclear if she will be called.  I also assume that the jury will be ignorant of what the prosecution claimed and presented at the immunity hearing.  Imagine the following in 36pt, red, all caps, bold, italic and underlined in order to better simulate Bernie's presentation.  ;D

Your honor, first I want to point out that it was at least as likely that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor as it was Martin.  Zimmerman left the safety of his truck shortly after he says Martin circled it with hostile intent.  He tells us that he was so fearful of confrontation that he wouldn't open the window part way to explain his business to Martin.  But still when the police dispatcher suggested he return to his vehicle, he kept going through the cut through to Retreat View Circle to get an address he says, for the police to meet him at, yet he never got the address and finally told the dispatcher to have the police call him when they arrived.  This clearly shows he wasn't concerned so much for his safety.  The hunt was on and he smelled meat.  As he was getting out of his truck, he told the dispatcher that Martin was running for the back entrance.  If he really wanted a good view of that he could have quickly driven close to the back entrance to head Martin off and more easily given the police directions where to meet him.  No, your honor, Zimmerman was so blinded by rage that another asshole would get away that he got out of his truck with his gun in his jacket pocket.  He told us that when Martin appeared out of the darkness, he searched for his cellphone to call 911 which he claimed was in his jacket pocket.  What he was really reaching for was the gun.  How the heck was he going to get a 911 call in with this guy he claimed he was in fear of close by?  Trayvon being at the "T" at that moment, when he could have been home, doesn't show aggressive intent on his part; he may really have wanted to know why he was being followed.  Thus we argue that the initial aggression was by Zimmerman.

In the following fight, your honor, the evidence is certainly in equipoise as to who is screaming for help.  The FBI says it can't be scientifically determined and the relatives and friends all say it is their man crying for his life.  Yes, Zimmerman was injured but not Martin, before the fatal shot.  We feel that indicates that Zimmerman was so intent on holding onto his gun, trying for the fatal shot, that he didn't defend himself.  He knew he wasn't in mortal danger from Martin.  He had the gun and his injuries were much less than he claimed later.  The best eyewitness, W#6, said he couldn't tell whether Martin was raining down blows MMA style or simply trying to hold down Zimmerman's wrists.  Thus your honor, it is not more likely than not that Zimmerman fired in self defense and this case should be decided by a jury.

I think this is pretty much what the prosecution is going to say at the immunity hearing.  The problem for them is that the defense gets their say as well and I think the details left out in the prosecutions argument you made swings the evidence in GZ's favor.  For example, I can't imagine a judge looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that its no more likely that it was GZ screaming on the 911 call than TM.   The weight of the evidence is surely in GZ's favor on that one. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 09:36:44 AM
I think this is pretty much what the prosecution is going to say at the immunity hearing.  The problem for them is that the defense gets their say as well and I think the details left out in the prosecutions argument you made swings the evidence in GZ's favor.  For example, I can't imagine a judge looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that its no more likely that it was GZ screaming on the 911 call than TM.   The weight of the evidence is surely in GZ's favor on that one.

Why?  The defense has more friends and relatives who will swear it is Zimmerman screaming than the prosecution has that will swear it is Martin?  I like to contrast the two statements:
1. It couldn't be Zimmerman screaming because he wouldn't stop suddenly at the instant of the shot.
2. It couldn't be Martin screaming because he would have said, "Help he has a gun" to W#6 instead of just "Help".
To me, both are unverifiable BS.  I think the only chance of weighting the evidence in GZ's favor will be if W#6 's echo opinion is checked out on location by an audio expert.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 09:51:03 AM
One argument the defense could use to counter a prosecution claim that Zimmerman had his gun out before he said he did is that Zimmerman would have fired it early to attract attention, even though it wasn't aimed at Martin.  I don't know anything about Zimmerman's gun.  Could it be fired repeatedly?  How many bullets did it carry?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 18, 2012, 09:55:01 AM
Why? The defense has more friends and relatives who will swear it is Zimmerman screaming than the prosecution has that will swear it is Martin?  I like to contrast the two statements:
1. It couldn't be Zimmerman screaming because he wouldn't stop suddenly at the instant of the shot.
2. It couldn't be Martin screaming because he would have said, "Help he has a gun" to W#6 instead of just "Help".
To me, both are unverifiable BS.  I think the only chance of weighting the evidence in GZ's favor will be if W#6 's echo opinion is checked out on location by an audio expert.
Why? I believe anyone with a subjective opinion would have to weight heavily the fact that Tracy denied the voice as his son, going into the hearing there will be two LEO's swearing to that fact. Personally I could never get beyond that in questioning the voice.

re: #1 the scream does not end at the instant of the shot... long ago it was timed out and AJ showed the scream ended before the shot is fired, to me that means once the decision and action began the need for screaming ended.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 18, 2012, 09:57:28 AM
<snip> I don't know anything about Zimmerman's gun.  Could it be fired repeatedly?  How many bullets did it carry?
Yes it is a semi-automatic, it is a 7+1 config and it was loaded with all eight possible rounds; interesting aside... although Zimmerman did not continue to fire... nothing stopped him from doing so the gun will fire with each pull of the trigger.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 10:16:23 AM
Yes it is a semi-automatic, it is a 7+1 config and it was loaded with all eight possible rounds; interesting aside... although Zimmerman did not continue to fire... nothing stopped him from doing so the gun will fire with each pull of the trigger.

Hmm, I think you are giving a counter argument for the prosecution.  Since Zimmerman only fired once, that shows he was waiting for an opportunity to plug Martin in the heart and desisted once he knew he did.  Z's statement that he thought at first he might have missed seems in conflict with firing only one shot.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 10:24:38 AM
Yes it is a semi-automatic, it is a 7+1 config and it was loaded with all eight possible rounds;

See p. 20 of the May 17 (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf) (184 page) release.

The gun is a Kel-Tec PF-9. (http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 10:43:32 AM
Are you saying anytime the defense shows a contradiction between DeeDee's account of what she thought Travyon told her and other evidence, the prosecution rebuttal will be to say only racists see a contradiction? 

I'm thinking mainly about the timeline problem.

So far, the prosecution has shown no sign of backing off the story in the charging affidavit, in which Martin was trying to get home and Zimmerman caught up with him. I think they may stick with that story, and make noise about racism to distract attention when anyone suggests doing the math. Any suggestion that Martin doubled back or lay in wait is 'stereotyping'.

It will help that many people just don't like math.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 18, 2012, 10:46:16 AM
Hmm, I think you are giving a counter argument for the prosecution.  Since Zimmerman only fired once, that shows he was waiting for an opportunity to plug Martin in the heart and desisted once he knew he did.  Z's statement that he thought at first he might have missed seems in conflict with firing only one shot.

I would argue Zimmerman was more likely disoriented by the report and then use testimony from W-13 arrival on the scene and GZ request to help subdue TM to counter premeditation or confidence in a single killshot.

I do not intend to be callus or insensitive to the current tragic news cycle but as has been shown a truly depraved mind at work fires multiple times regardless of placement, there is a common term used to describe this action "double tap".
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 10:54:57 AM
Zimmerman would have fired it early to attract attention

That would endanger bystanders.

That's also a reason for using hollow points and shooting center mass, contrary to Mary Cutcher's vapid suggestion that Zimmerman should have tried to shoot Martin in the leg, like some action movie hero.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 11:30:29 AM
It seems to me that Zimmerman's actions, beginning with the decision to get out of the truck on Feb. 26 7:12PM EST and continuing to the present, defy characterization as what a logical person would do in a particular situation.  That is why I much prefer physical evidence in this case to psychological analysis.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 18, 2012, 12:39:57 PM
Why?  The defense has more friends and relatives who will swear it is Zimmerman screaming than the prosecution has that will swear it is Martin?

Is your assumption that one family is full of liars? They would have to swear this under oath.

So far Tracy has denied it was TM screaming, and during an interview Jahvaris says he wasn't sure it was TM screaming. He's recorded on video saying it. I see no such uncertainty amongst those of George's family/friends that have weighed in on who the screamer was.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 12:55:01 PM
Z's statement that he thought at first he might have missed seems in conflict with firing only one shot.

Reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 10:39-51
Quote
Zimmerman: And I didn't think I hit him, because he sat up, and he said "Ugh, you got me." "You got it," "You got me," "You got it," something like that. So I thought he was just saying, "I know you have a gun now, I heard it, I'm giving up."

Similar statement in the CVSA, (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/statements/video_interview_cvsa_0227.asf) 32:59-33:17, 6:51:35-54.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 12:58:21 PM
Is your assumption that one family is full of liars? They would have to swear this under oath.

So far Tracy has denied it was TM screaming, and during an interview Jahvaris says he wasn't sure it was TM screaming. He's recorded on video saying it. I see no such uncertainty amongst those of George's family/friends that have weighed in on who the screamer was.

I am sure somebody here can help me out on this.  Doesn't cousin Steven (Booby) Fulton or Martin say that he would swear on a thousand bibles that it was Trayvon screaming?  I think it was in his interview in one of the discovery documents.  It is not my assumption that anybody is lying about their identification of the screams.  My belief is that for emotional reasons they have all convinced themselves that they can do the identification when it really is impossible.  If the FBI says it is impossible to do with their equipment, what more information is in the tape that the relatives can use to make the identification but the FBI can't?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 18, 2012, 01:11:25 PM
I am sure somebody here can help me out on this.  Doesn't cousin Steven (Booby) Fulton or Martin say that he would swear on a thousand bibles that it was Trayvon screaming?  I think it was in his interview in one of the discovery documents.  It is not my assumption that anybody is lying about their identification of the screams.  My belief is that for emotional reasons they have all convinced themselves that they can do the identification when it really is impossible.  If the FBI says it is impossible to do with their equipment, what more information is in the tape that the relatives can use to make the identification but the FBI can't?

When my speech to text program can transcribe my words without error then we can talk about technology versus human ability.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 18, 2012, 01:16:58 PM
Why?  The defense has more friends and relatives who will swear it is Zimmerman screaming than the prosecution has that will swear it is Martin?  I like to contrast the two statements:
1. It couldn't be Zimmerman screaming because he wouldn't stop suddenly at the instant of the shot.
2. It couldn't be Martin screaming because he would have said, "Help he has a gun" to W#6 instead of just "Help".
To me, both are unverifiable BS.  I think the only chance of weighting the evidence in GZ's favor will be if W#6 's echo opinion is checked out on location by an audio expert.

1.  This is a figment of your imagination.  The screaming does not stop with the gunshot.  The last scream ended before the shot was fired.  Also, a screaming person wouldn't stop abruptly when shot.  IT would trail off.
2.  I do think the content of the screaming is telling, though I don't think any specific conclusion can be drawn.  People under duress aren't going to follow any set pattern. 

There is no eye witness that identifies TM uttering any words.  W-6 was certain it was the guy on the bottom calling for help, but under strenuous questioning, admitted that he couldn't see any lips moving because it was too dark.  Even if you completely discount that he has credibility on the source of the screams, his statement matches GZ's claim that he called out to W6.  Not sure how he would have known W6 saw anything if he had been the one on top with his back turned (as described by W6).   W-6 seems pretty credible to me and his statements clearly tilt in GZ's favor on this point.  Austin also stated to police he saw a man on the ground in red yelling for help.   Then there is TM's father denying that it was his sons voice screaming.   The defense will put on several officers testifying to this effect and it will be interesting to see if they put Tracy on the stand to offer an explanation on that.  IT would open him up to questioning on other events/actions by the prosecution.   Add  the physical wounds sustained by GZ and you have a body of evidence that tilts in his favor as to who was screaming out for help. 

I think we have pretty close to a standard beyond a reasonable doubt that it was GZ screaming for help.  I don't think there is anyway he doesn't overcome the preponderance of the evidence at least on this point.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 01:21:40 PM
Doesn't cousin Steven (Booby) Fulton or Martin say that he would swear on a thousand bibles that it was Trayvon screaming? 

P. 9 of the July 12 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf) (284 page) release.

Quote
When asked about the calls for help he said without a doubt "on a stack of Bibles" that it was Trayvon's voice.

The 'thousand bibles' version sounds familiar, but I can't place it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 18, 2012, 01:34:18 PM
It seems to me that Zimmerman's actions, beginning with the decision to get out of the truck on Feb. 26 7:12PM EST and continuing to the present, defy characterization as what a logical person would do in a particular situation.  That is why I much prefer physical evidence in this case to psychological analysis.

I disagree.  He was a watch person and clearly showed an interest in neighborhood safety.  He's witnessed suspicious people and called it in before and they got away as he sat idly by.  He knows of at least one instance where a woman was at home with her child and thieves entered the house.  His wife is often at home alone.  I think all of these are reasons that would prompt a logical person to want to get out of their vehicle to be the eyes of the police and help them locate TM.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 01:41:50 PM
Then there is TM's father denying that it was his sons voice screaming. The defense will put on several officers testifying to this effect

Who beside Serino and Irwin?

Is it known when Irwin first went on the record on this?

Quote
and it will be interesting to see if they put Tracy on the stand to offer an explanation on that.

I don't think it will be admissible except to impeach Tracy Martin if he testifies.

Quote
IT would open him up to questioning on other events/actions by the prosecution.   

What would those be?

If there is evidence that Tracy Martin has knowledge of prosecutorial misconduct, I would think he could be called for that reason. I don't see what one thing has to do with the other.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 18, 2012, 01:48:44 PM
The 'thousand bibles' version sounds familiar, but I can't place it.

Quote
In the batch of evidence released Thursday, investigators asked Martin's cousin if he could identify the voice on those calls.
"When asked about the calls for help he said without a doubt 'on a stack of Bibles' that it was Trayvon's voice,'" the document states

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12701508-prosecutor-releases-another-round-of-zimmerman-evidence?lite

EDIT: Is this the same cousin that said he met Dee Dee at the funeral? Ronquavis Fulton?

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/04/02/trayvons-cousin-its-him-screaming?clusterId=367#videoplayer
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 01:50:44 PM
I would think the officer issuing the capias request would be allowed to testify about the how or why he came to the conclusion to issue the arrest.

I'd be surprised if such testimony were allowed. What is the purpose of the testimony, other than presenting the officer as an expert witness on Zimmerman's guilt? As the court said in Farley v. State, 324 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975): "The opinion of a witness as to the guilt or innocence of an accused person is not admissible in evidence." I think it would be an especially egregious example, since the witnesses would be telling the jury how they should analyze and weigh the evidence.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 01:54:00 PM
I disagree.  He was a watch person and clearly showed an interest in neighborhood safety.  He's witnessed suspicious people and called it in before and they got away as he sat idly by.  He knows of at least one instance where a woman was at home with her child and thieves entered the house.  His wife is often at home alone.  I think all of these are reasons that would prompt a logical person to want to get out of their vehicle to be the eyes of the police and help them locate TM.

This matter has recently been covered.  The logical thing to do, as unitron pointed out, would be to drive his truck towards the back gate since Z himself stated that was the direction M was running.  He could have more easily told the dispatcher to have the cops meet him there and along the way pointed his headlights into the dogpath from its south end.  He told Serino and Singleton that he didn't identify himself to Martin when the latter was circling his car out of fear.  Yet right after he saw Martin turn right into the dogpath, he goes right by it on his way to RVC, to get an address he says, which of course, he never got.  And he tells Hannity he has no regrets about getting out of the car.  All examples of a logical thinker?  ???
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 02:02:23 PM
He told Serino and Singleton that he didn't identify himself to Martin when the latter was circling his car out of fear. 

That was in accordance with the Neighborhood Watch guidelines provided by the Sanford PD.

It is said that some NW programs to it differently, but the materials provided to Zimmerman say to avoid any contact with suspicious persons. Wendy Dorival confirmed in her FDLE interview that her oral presentation was the same. Citations in this thread. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2198.0.html)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 02:15:38 PM
I don't think it will be admissible except to impeach Tracy Martin if he testifies.

Come to think of it, there's no 'if'. Tracy Martin isn't a defendant. He has to testify. The defense will call him in the immunity hearing.

ETA: My understanding is that Tracy Martin's present story is that the told the police that he didn't know if the voice is Trayvon's or not, then later decided that it is.

The defense will call Tracy, and ask the questions that will elicit whatever his story is on that day. Unless he has conformed it to the SPD officers, those officers will then be called to impeach.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 18, 2012, 02:21:59 PM
There is a reason that Trayvon Martin's family hasn't released an exemplar of his voice, IMO.  It has to be out there.  Sybrina Fulton said that she bring herself to call his cell number because hearing his voice cause her duress.

Can MOM hear that recording, if it hasn't been scrubbed?  He has access to the phone records by now, right?  If it is still there, can he, through his experts, make his own exemplar of it for comparison?

I can't imagine they would erase that recording of their son.

Tracy Martin on the stand would be interesting but to me, I am more interested in the words of Sybrina Fulton.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 02:44:01 PM
I can't imagine they would erase that recording of their son.

I can imagine it, but if they did, I think they'd probably be guilty of tampering with evidence (section 918.13).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 02:51:54 PM
There is a reason that Trayvon Martin's family hasn't released an exemplar of his voice, IMO.

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be anything in the discovery to show that any of the investigating agencies ever asked for one. The Martins are on record saying they don't have one because a journalist asked them.

Quote
If it is still there, can he, through his experts, make his own exemplar of it for comparison?

I don't know why not. But the FBI experts had studio samples of Zimmerman's voice actually yelling 'help', and reached no conclusion.

Quote
I can't imagine they would erase that recording of their son.

We've been over this. The authorities have the phone.

I think the Martins would erase it if they could.

From the 7-11 audio it seems like Trayvon had a remarkably deep voice, deeper than Zimmerman's, whose voice I would say is about average for an adult male. But it's hard to tell because of the ambient noise.

If the public could hear a clear sample of Trayvon's voice, it just might blow away all the talk of a screaming young/little boy. At the moment I think that would matter more to the Martins than the sentimental value of the recording. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 18, 2012, 03:00:37 PM
The FBI listed the poor quality of the 911 tape and the stressed quality of the yelling voice on it as reasons it could not make a comparison with another exemplar.  They wouldn't be able to make a comparison with one of Trayvon's voice but if Trayvon had a bass voice on it, it would help the defense with the public.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 04:15:13 PM

EDIT: Is this the same cousin that said he met Dee Dee at the funeral? Ronquavis Fulton?

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/04/02/trayvons-cousin-its-him-screaming?clusterId=367#videoplayer

I don't think so. If Stephen/Boobie is also Ronquavis, he sure has a lot of names.

From the interview:

Quote
Nancy: Do you know this girl he was talking to on the phone that evening?

Ronquavis: No, but I met her at the funeral.

Nancy: You did?

Ronquavis: Yes.

Nancy: Did you have any opportunity to talk to her?

Ronquavis: No, not personally. Just like a, just a meet, just a formal meeting.

To me, 'this girl he was talking to on the phone that evening' doesn't sound much like a formal introduction. If there was just a formal meeting and no conversation, how did Ronquavis know he met the girl in question?

I'm getting tired of 'journalists' who don't know how to ask a follow-up question.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 04:30:21 PM
Who beside Serino and Irwin?

Sorry, that's Investigator William Erwin, who administered the CVSA, and recently emerged as a corroborating witness for Serino's claim that Tracy denied the screaming voice was Trayvon's.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 05:23:53 PM
during an interview Jahvaris says he wasn't sure it was TM screaming. He's recorded on video saying it.

Video (http://miami.cbslocal.com/video/6895823-web-extra-trayvon-martins-brother-speaks-exclusively-to-cbs4/)

He seemed to be hinting he might firm up his opinion after listening to the recording again.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 06:48:55 PM
We've been over this. The authorities have the phone.

I doubt the greeting is stored on the phone. If it were, and someone called you when your phone was turned off, they wouldn't get your voice-mail greeting. But one of the main reasons for  having voice-mail is to let people leave messages when your phone is turned off.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 06:58:46 PM
I doubt the greeting is stored on the phone.

That makes sense.

Can the account holder erase it without access to the phone?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 18, 2012, 07:18:34 PM
That makes sense.

Can the account holder erase it without access to the phone?

Didn't the police call 911 from the phone to get the number of the phone? And then someone called the phone back? I could be misremembering, but if not when did this happen and wouldn't the person calling back hear the message or lack of one?

EDIT: Apparently it happened on 3/2/2012. Be interesting to see what the person that called the phone heard. They wouldn't be able to answer w/o the pin, so it would have had to go to voice mail. Although I suppose  they could have hung up after it rang and before it went to voice mail. Still, it would be interesting to find out.

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2166.msg103684.html#msg103684
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 07:19:55 PM
Can the account holder erase it without access to the phone?

That's a good question. Perhaps someone with a T-Mobile account can provide some information. My guess is that the account owner could, but might have to jump through some hoops. Assuming the account owner, Tracy, didn't know the voice-mail password, I think he could change the password, then call the original phone from a different phone, and when he got the greeting, hit "*" which would interrupt the greeting. He'd then be in the voice-mail menu, and after entertaining the new password, could change the greeting.

This is based on my own (limited) experience and on a website (http://www.querycat.com/question/809860d48d70e49a86e13ea192ad5020) that says:

Quote
How do I access my T-mobile voicemail?
Frequently Asked Questions
Press 1 or *123 send from your wireless phone. If prompted for a password the first time you access your new VoiceMail account, enter the last four digits of your mobile number. Follow the voice prompts. From a landline phone, dial your phone number. Press * to interrupt the greeting. Follow the voice prompts.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 07:25:13 PM
Didn't the police call 911 from the phone to get the number of the phone? And then someone called the phone back? I could be misremembering, but if not when did this happen and wouldn't the person calling back hear the message or lack of one?

They probably answered the phone, so it didn't go to voice mail. In fact, I'm pretty sure they answered it, because voice-mail usually doesn't show up on the phone bill unless it's retrieved. Whether or not they also called without answering to hear the voice-mail greeting hasn't been revealed to the public.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 18, 2012, 07:30:03 PM
They probably answered the phone, so it didn't go to voice mail. In fact, I'm pretty sure they answered it, because voice-mail usually doesn't show up on the phone bill unless it's retrieved. Whether or not they also called without answering to hear the voice-mail greeting hasn't been revealed to the public.

I think you missed my edit. How do you answer a phone when you don't have the pin to unlock it? I wasn't thinking about retrieving the voice mail. I was thinking about the person that called hearing the voice mail message. i.e. did one exist on 3/2/2012 and later got deleted.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 07:30:30 PM
They wouldn't be able to answer w/o the pin, so it would have had to go to voice mail. Although I suppose  they could have hung up after it rang and before it went to voice mail. Still, it would be interesting to find out.

When the phone calls 911, it goes into a special emergency mode that allows return calls from the police to be answered.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 18, 2012, 07:31:43 PM
When the phone calls 911, it goes into a special emergency mode that allows return calls from the police to be answered.

That would explain it. Thanx.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 09:31:26 PM
IANAL, but I thought I recalled reading early on that if GZ testifies at the immunity hearing what he says can be brought up at trial only if he also testifies at trial.

I don't know why that would be. The Dennis hearing itself is at the instigation of the defendant. He doesn't have to have one, much less testify at it, so there is no Fifth Amendment issue.

Quote
I do not know the pertinent statute

I think that would be Fla. Stat. § 90.803, (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html) paragraph 22, FORMER TESTIMONY as hearsay exception.

Exceptions under 90.803 apply even if the declarant is available. I think that means the defense can take advantage of it too. It looks like the immunity hearing testimony of any witness can be introduced at trial by either party.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 10:22:48 PM
I don't know why that would be. The Dennis hearing itself is at the instigation of the defendant. He doesn't have to have one, much less testify at it, so there is no Fifth Amendment issue.

I think that would be Fla. Stat. § 90.803, (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html) paragraph 22, FORMER TESTIMONY as hearsay exception.

Exceptions under 90.803 apply even if the declarant is available. I think that means the defense can take advantage of it too. It looks like the immunity hearing testimony of any witness can be introduced at trial by either party.

I think they may have in mind Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132(c)(1):
Quote
No testimony by the defendant shall be admissible to prove the guilt of the defendant at any other judicial proceeding, but may be admitted in an action for perjury based on the defendant’s statements made at the pretrial detention hearing or for impeachment.

That rule applies to a pretrial detention hearing. As far as I know, it doesn't also apply the a Dennis hearing, but I don't believe the Dennis hearing rules are specifically laid out anywhere, so I'm not certain.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 18, 2012, 10:38:40 PM
I don't believe the Dennis hearing rules are specifically laid out anywhere, so I'm not certain.

My understanding is that a Dennis hearing is a type of evidentiary hearing. The rules are the same as for any other evidentiary hearing, except where there is case law applying specifically to Dennis hearings.

(My spellchecker doesn't believe in 'evidentiary' or 'declarant'. I wonder if I can give it a law dictionary for Christmas?)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 11:13:29 PM
My understanding is that a Dennis hearing is a type of evidentiary hearing. The rules are the same as for any other evidentiary hearing, except where there is case law applying specifically to Dennis hearings.

(My spellchecker doesn't believe in 'evidentiary' or 'declarant'. I wonder if I can give it a law dictionary for Christmas?)

I agree it's a type of evidentiary hearing, but I'm not sure that completely answers the question of what rules apply. In a case I've mentioned before, McDaniel v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8806830137999307538&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), the 2nd DCA held that hearsay evidence that didn't meet the statutory exceptions wasn't admissible at Dennis hearings, even though it is admissible at suppression hearings, which are also a type of evidentiary hearing. That said, I have no reason the think the rule I mentioned above applies to immunity hearings

In the Firefox spellchecker, it's easy to add words to the dictionary. Just right click and choose "Add to Dictionary." If you're using something else, I'm afraid you're on your own.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 18, 2012, 11:18:17 PM
I realize you said "...except where there is case law applying specifically to Dennis hearings." I just wanted to point out a significant difference (for which there was no case law prior to McDaniel).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on December 19, 2012, 12:32:54 AM
Didn't the police call 911 from the phone to get the number of the phone? And then someone called the phone back? I could be misremembering, but if not when did this happen and wouldn't the person calling back hear the message or lack of one?

EDIT: Apparently it happened on 3/2/2012. Be interesting to see what the person that called the phone heard. They wouldn't be able to answer w/o the pin, so it would have had to go to voice mail. Although I suppose  they could have hung up after it rang and before it went to voice mail. Still, it would be interesting to find out.

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2166.msg103684.html#msg103684

The call from Trayvon's phone to 911 happened at about the same time of day, on the same day, as Trayvon's funeral, so it was probably the police dialing 911 with it to prove what the number of the phone was by getting it from 911's Caller ID.

I don't know if it would let them get anything else or not.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on December 19, 2012, 12:35:39 AM
It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be anything in the discovery to show that any of the investigating agencies ever asked for one. The Martins are on record saying they don't have one because a journalist asked them.

I don't know why not. But the FBI experts had studio samples of Zimmerman's voice actually yelling 'help', and reached no conclusion.

We've been over this. The authorities have the phone.

I think the Martins would erase it if they could.

From the 7-11 audio it seems like Trayvon had a remarkably deep voice, deeper than Zimmerman's, whose voice I would say is about average for an adult male. But it's hard to tell because of the ambient noise.

If the public could hear a clear sample of Trayvon's voice, it just might blow away all the talk of a screaming young/little boy. At the moment I think that would matter more to the Martins than the sentimental value of the recording.

Don't people's voices generally go up in pitch when they scream in terror?

It's not like their throat is going to be particularly relaxed under the circumstances.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 19, 2012, 09:11:58 AM
This matter has recently been covered.  The logical thing to do, as unitron pointed out, would be to drive his truck towards the back gate since Z himself stated that was the direction M was running.  He could have more easily told the dispatcher to have the cops meet him there and along the way pointed his headlights into the dogpath from its south end.  He told Serino and Singleton that he didn't identify himself to Martin when the latter was circling his car out of fear.  Yet right after he saw Martin turn right into the dogpath, he goes right by it on his way to RVC, to get an address he says, which of course, he never got.  And he tells Hannity he has no regrets about getting out of the car.  All examples of a logical thinker?  ???

When the dispatcher asked which way Martin ran, GZ says "toward the back entrance", but later as he's walking around talking with the dispatcher along the 'T', he says he doesn't know where TM is.  He has no idea whether he ran "to" the back entrance or not, just that it was the direction he headed.  He could have driven the 300 yards or so to see if TM ran to the back entrance, or he could get out of his vehicle where he was to see where TM ran to.  Both would be logical reactions.    How was he going to point his headlights down the dog path?  Are you suggesting he park perpendicular in the roadway blocking all traffic?  IF GZ drives to the back entrance to cut off TM, wouldn't that be more evidence of a chase or being confrontational than following TM's path to see where he went?  If he was looking to avoid  confrontation and see where TM went, it seems more logical to me he would trail at a safe distance versus driving ahead and cutting off the escape path (assuming he knew exactly where TM was headed).

Why he didn't identify himself to TM has been addressed.  He said he was scared of a confrontation and instructions from police were not to confront suspicious individuals.

Who says he never got an address?  He never gave one to the dispatcher, that is clear, but we don't know whether GZ got one or not.  He wasn't asked whether he got one in any of his questioning that I recall.

I don't recall the referenced quote to Hannity.  I only saw parts of the interview, but my impression from it was he didn't feel like he did anything wrong and without knowing the outcome, wouldn't change anything he did that evening.   
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 19, 2012, 09:47:05 AM
This matter has recently been covered.  The logical thing to do, as unitron pointed out, would be to drive his truck towards the back gate since Z himself stated that was the direction M was running.  He could have more easily told the dispatcher to have the cops meet him there and along the way pointed his headlights into the dogpath from its south end.  He told Serino and Singleton that he didn't identify himself to Martin when the latter was circling his car out of fear.  Yet right after he saw Martin turn right into the dogpath, he goes right by it on his way to RVC, to get an address he says, which of course, he never got.  And he tells Hannity he has no regrets about getting out of the car.  All examples of a logical thinker?  ???

By who's definition of logical, RJ? Yours? By some of your postings here you've kind of outed yourself as someone teetering on the wrong edge of the logical ledge, so to speak. And what's logical for unitron or you isn't logical for someone else--something my Logic professor and I used to go around about. In the same way history is written by the winners, "logic" belongs to those who appoint themselves the arbiters.

And as I've posted before: He goes on Hannity and says something to the effect that he'd take it all back or he'd stay in the car or he'd never have even looked twice at that shadowy figure that rainy night--he's just given the entire world rope to fashion a noose with.

Saying what he said? Pretty logical actually.

Maybe not pretty, not warm, not fuzzy, not postmodern PC America, but pretty logical. And I bet O'Mara drilled it into him too.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 19, 2012, 11:18:58 AM
In the Firefox spellchecker, it's easy to add words to the dictionary. Just right click and choose "Add to Dictionary."

Thanks. That's a handy tip. Why don't they tell us these things when we install the software?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: jupchurch on December 19, 2012, 11:37:12 AM
Thanks. That's a handy tip. Why don't they tell us these things when we install the software?

Google Chrome does the same thing. I'm not sure that I could function anymore without a spellchecker.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 19, 2012, 12:13:15 PM
Don't people's voices generally go up in pitch when they scream in terror?

So would Zimmerman's.

If Martin's voice was deeper, how would the scream being high pitched exclude Zimmerman?

No one actually said the voice calling for help sounded high pitched or youthful until days or weeks after the shooting.

Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora told Serino they didn't hear any words.

W-18 told 911 she saw two 'men' wrestling, and then one of 'men' started calling for help. She said the same to Serino that night.

Austin (W-14) told 911, and Serino a few days later, that the man on the ground was the screamer. He is supposed to have told a journalist that he had changed his mind and thought Trayvon was the screamer, but that's not mentioned in the summary of his SAO interview (p. 33 of the July 12, (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf) 284 page release).

Cutcher and Mora were paraded on TV, saying they thought a 'little boy' was crying, and not mentioning that they didn't even hear the calls for help. W-18 went on CNN, in the dark with a voice distorter, and said she thought the 'young boy' was calling for help.

All this has given much of the public the impression that up to four on-scene witnesses support Martin as the screamer, on the grounds of the voice being youthfully high-pitched.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 19, 2012, 12:25:56 PM
So would Zimmerman's.

If Martin's voice was deeper, how would the scream being high pitched exclude Zimmerman?

No one actually said the voice calling for help sounded high pitched or youthful until days or weeks after the shooting.

Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora told Serino they didn't hear any words.

W-18 told 911 she saw two 'men' wrestling, and then one of 'men' started calling for help. She said the same to Serino that night.

Austin (W-14) told 911, and Serino a few days later, that the man on the ground was the screamer. He is supposed to have told a journalist that he had changed his mind and thought Trayvon was the screamer, but that's not mentioned in the summary of his SAO interview (p. 33 of the July 12, (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf) 284 page release).

Cutcher and Mora were paraded on TV, saying they thought a 'little boy' was crying, and not mentioning that they didn't even hear the calls for help. W-18 went on CNN, in the dark with a voice distorter, and said she thought the 'young boy' was calling for help.

All this has given much of the public the impression that up to four on-scene witnesses support Martin as the screamer, on the grounds of the voice being youthfully high-pitched.



Thanks. I was going to post much the same thing earlier but figured you'd start in with how we don't know if TM's voice was deep or deeper than GZ's at any rate and so forth.

 ;) :)
Title: Re: Ricky Jim's scerio discussion
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 19, 2012, 01:38:30 PM
The testimony of Witness 6 is inconsistent with TM trying to wrest a gun from GZ.

If he was trying to deflect the gun or disarm GZ  any person in Martin's position would focus on  grabbing the gun hand / wrist / arm with both hands with all force he could muster.

One of my martial arts books says the way to disarm a gunman is to grab his wrist with one hand, and slap the back of his hand with other.

Assuming Martin would act as you describe, I don't see how that would be inconsistent with what W-6 described.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 19, 2012, 05:09:12 PM
The best eyewitness, W#6, said he couldn't tell whether Martin was raining down blows MMA style or simply trying to hold down Zimmerman's wrists. 

In over 50 minutes of interviews, with SPD, FDLE, and Corey's SAO, I don't think W-6 ever once said the word 'wrist' or 'wrists'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 19, 2012, 07:32:44 PM
How was he going to point his headlights down the dog path?  Are you suggesting he park perpendicular in the roadway blocking all traffic?
I doubt there is much traffic inside a gated community on a rainy Sunday evening.  I see people perform the maneuver, all the time, of going perpendicular to the sidewalk when making U-turns on residential streets.  Maybe a Google Maps expert can tell us how wide the street perpendicular to the dogpath is.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 19, 2012, 08:10:47 PM
Another idea for a thread would be, How Would the Defense Present Their Case Without Zimmerman Testifying? I won't start it myself because I don't have the foggiest idea of the answer right now.  Here is an example of the questions Zimmerman might be asked about his trip from TTL to RVC if he were cross examined.
I don't think Serino, Singleton and Hannity did a very good job of cross examination.  The prosecution  might be smart to hire an expert to do it.  No, Not me.   :D
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 19, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
Another idea for a thread would be, How Would the Defense Present Their Case Without Zimmerman Testifying?

If Zimmerman doesn't testify, how the defense presents its case will depend greatly on how the state presents its case. For instance, if the prosecution wants to use the alleged inconsistencies in Zimmerman's interviews (as they probably will),  I believe the entire interviews will likely be admitted into evidence on the doctrine of completeness. At that point, I wonder if the advantage of Zimmerman testifying would outweigh the risk of cross-examination. Most of his version will be before the jury.

Certainly the defense can use W6 to establish that, at least, Martin was on top, and the first-responders and the photographs to establish Zimmerman was injured. Even if the defense can't get W6 to say his first version, where Martin was beating Zimmerman, was likely correct, the injuries make it unlikely Martin was only restraining Zimmerman. The defense will also use their own voice ID witnesses to rebut the state's voice witnesses.

A case where the defendant doesn't testify usually depends a great deal on establishing reasonable doubt by casting doubt on the state's witnesses through cross examination.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 19, 2012, 09:28:06 PM
A case where the defendant doesn't testify usually depends a great deal on establishing reasonable doubt by casting doubt on the state's witnesses through cross examination.

The first question is how the defense will present its case at the immunity hearing without having Zimmerman testify.  That is what I had in mind.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 19, 2012, 09:42:24 PM
Maybe a Google Maps expert can tell us how wide the street perpendicular to the dogpath is.

On Google Earth, Twin Trees Lane looks to be a little over 20 feet wide.

A Honda Ridgeline is about 17 feet long.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 19, 2012, 10:03:45 PM
The first question is how the defense will present its case at the immunity hearing without having Zimmerman testify.  That is what I had in mind.

Sorry I misinterpreted it, though I'm not sure the answer is that much different. Zimmerman, of course, has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self defense; but the testimony from W6 and the first-responders, along with the lack of injuries (prior to the shooting) to Martin establish that Zimmerman was violently attacked by a stranger on a dark night. I think that shifts the burden to the state to show he was not in reasonable fear for his life.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 19, 2012, 10:06:22 PM
So, MJW, you think he can get immunity without testifying?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 19, 2012, 10:13:04 PM
So, MJW, you think he can get immunity without testifying?

That's hard to say without knowing how the evidence against him holds up. If the judge believes Zimmerman is the one screaming on the 911 call, I think she certainly should grant immunity, but if I were forced to make a prediction, I'd say it's unlikely.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 20, 2012, 01:04:03 AM
That's hard to say without knowing how the evidence against him holds up. If the judge believes Zimmerman is the one screaming on the 911 call, I think she certainly should grant immunity, but if I were forced to make a prediction, I'd say it's unlikely.

IMO only.  I don't think the judge is going to rule in favor of self-defense in this case.  She has had two SYG hearings and kicked both to a jury.  The first one, I thought there was evidence to support self-defense and the jury acquitted the person on trial.  The last one I agreed with.  That one needs a jury.

I firmly believe that Zimmerman should not take the stand in an immunity hearing.  I think that MOM can proceed with his case since he has witnesses and injuries that support GZ's narrative.  The bar is lower and I believe that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of Zimmerman. 

The thing I like best about the immunity hearing is that it will lock down evidence that the prosecution intends to use against GZ in the event of a trial.   It can be used to impeach testimony in the event of a trial, if necessary.  (Remember I believe that there will be a trial.  Judges are elected officals.  Unless Debra Nelson wants to be "unelected" she will kick the can.)

The same could be said for Zimmerman.  I believe he has a firm self-defense case but no coaching in the world is going to get him around the hidden money in the fund.  He can explain his distrust, and with all of the events that transpired in the initial days/weeks following the shooting- I don't blame him, but it is still going to show him as dishonest which throws a shadow on his testimony.

He doesn't come across as a sympathetic figure.  He had to have been prepped extensively for that Hannity interview and, IMO, that was not successful.  That was a softball interview.  Getting crossed by the Prosecution is a whole 'nuther ballgame.  They will use anything they can against him.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 20, 2012, 02:13:26 AM
The same could be said for Zimmerman.  I believe he has a firm self-defense case but no coaching in the world is going to get him around the hidden money in the fund.  He can explain his distrust, and with all of the events that transpired in the initial days/weeks following the shooting- I don't blame him, but it is still going to show him as dishonest which throws a shadow on his testimony.

I don't see how that's even admissible.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 20, 2012, 02:23:04 AM
IMO only.  I don't think the judge is going to rule in favor of self-defense in this case.  She has had two SYG hearings and kicked both to a jury.

If Zimmerman loses the immunity issue in the trial court, I think he'll appeal to the 5th DCA. I can't see why anyone wouldn't. If you don't appeal, and then lose at trial, you can't appeal the immunity issue, since the state supreme court ruled that because the jury has determined beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn't self defense, they've consequently determined that the preponderance of evidence didn't support self defense.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 20, 2012, 02:28:07 AM
I don't see how that's even admissible.

I guess it depends on the path of questioning.  If there is a way to get it in there by way of scope, I can see it happening.  Even if the Prosecution just straight up says something like "Why did you lie about the funds in your account?" all of the objections in the world aren't going to unring the bell.

I am a pessimist and certainly an "IANAL type."

Thank you for the reminder about the appeal if it is needed.  IDK why I keep pushing that to the back of my mind.

Old age and medications!
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 20, 2012, 03:04:53 AM
I see nothing in the court records to show that Kishawn Jones appealed the SYG ruling against him. I don't know why, since an appeal (by seeking a writ of prohibition) is available. I don't think I've ever seen one for the 5th DCA, so maybe there's a split between DCAs.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 20, 2012, 05:45:07 AM
IMO only.  I don't think the judge is going to rule in favor of self-defense in this case.  She has had two SYG hearings and kicked both to a jury.  The first one, I thought there was evidence to support self-defense and the jury acquitted the person on trial.  The last one I agreed with.  That one needs a jury.

Well in the first one, even the guy's lawyer agreed that she made the right call and followed the law, and I think I tend to agree.

The first case IMO didn't meet a preponderance of the evidence required for Nelson to grant immunity (but there was enough for reasonable doubt), so it went as it should.  This recent case I couldn't see immunity being granted either.

They're totally different beasts than the Zimmerman case, in which the prosecution had to really, really stretch it to arguably even meet probable cause.  If Nelson doesn't grant immunity on that one, it's a shoe-in for the appellate court (and it'd be the same court that overturned Lester's ruling that would handle the appeal.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 20, 2012, 06:57:54 AM
I firmly believe that Zimmerman should not take the stand in an immunity hearing. 

What about at the trial?   Suppose the prosecution doesn't introduce any of Zimmeman's interviews - just relies on the NEN call, DeeDee, Sybrina and somebody who will testify that Zimmerman's gun killed Martin.  How does the defense get the judge to give the jury a self defense instruction without Zimmerman testifying?  Does Florida law allow the defense to introduce Zimmerman's out of court statements without him having to be cross examined on them?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 20, 2012, 08:29:42 AM
What about at the trial?   Suppose the prosecution doesn't introduce any of Zimmeman's interviews - just relies on the NEN call, DeeDee, Sybrina and somebody who will testify that Zimmerman's gun killed Martin.  How does the defense get the judge to give the jury a self defense instruction without Zimmerman testifying?  Does Florida law allow the defense to introduce Zimmerman's out of court statements without him having to be cross examined on them?

W11/20 to testify that they heard the fight start by the T intersection. 
W6 to testify that he heard the fight coming from a distance, end up behind his house, and that he saw Trayvon on top of George. 
The photos of George and the numerous witnesses that saw George's injuries. 
The forensics experts that will testify that the evidence is consistent with Trayvon being on top of George when the shot was fired.
Experts such as Massad Ayoob who could explain how that position shows a disparity of force justifying lethal force in self defense.

And so on.  Showing reasonable doubt really will be easy, and the Defense's narrative could be told without George's testimony.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 20, 2012, 09:01:19 AM
What I think Kyreth means is that as long as the judge tells the jury that they can acquit on the basis of self defense, Zimmerman is home free.  (Well, as long as the jury wasn't afraid of repercussions to themselves, I would agree.)  I think he is also saying that Zimmerman's injuries and testimony that Martin was probably on top at the time of the shot is enough to cause a self defense instruction to be given to the jury, something which has a pretty low threshold, according to Florida case law. 

Now if we agree with all that, there is no reason for the prosecution not to put everything they have into their case, in particular Zimmerman's interviews.  But without Zimmerman to cross examine, I doubt they would have much of an impact.  But there is a serious possibility that Zimmerman will refuse to listen to O'Mara and West (and us  ;D) and insist on testifying.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 20, 2012, 09:13:17 AM
What about at the trial?   Suppose the prosecution doesn't introduce any of Zimmeman's interviews - just relies on the NEN call, DeeDee, Sybrina and somebody who will testify that Zimmerman's gun killed Martin.  How does the defense get the judge to give the jury a self defense instruction without Zimmerman testifying?  Does Florida law allow the defense to introduce Zimmerman's out of court statements without him having to be cross examined on them?

The defense would use the NEN (showing GZ talking calmly to dispatcher), Dee Dee (who says TM lost GZ, was by his house, started walking back and is the first to confront GZ verbally), John and Austin who had GZ on the ground screaming for help, the 911 call capturing screams for help, injury reports, photos, witness saying he looked like he just got his butt kicked, etc.  I'd think that would be plenty for reasonable doubt at trial. 

I personally think GZ testifies at an immunity trial and not at regular trial.  I'm not sure he has to testify to reach a preponderance of the evidence standard, but the one sticking point will be whether he started the conflict by doing something illegal.  This will be dependent on Dee Dee's testimony.  IF a judge only hears Dee Dee's statement and she repeats the claim that TM said "get off", then I'd think the defense would have to offer some evidence to counter that.  Although, given that Dee Dee said "the man" had a deep angry voice, and some other things that could be disproved, the defense might be able to impeach her enough that the entirety of her testimony won't carry much weight.  ITs even possible her testimony isn't allowed given the Martin's counsel involvement with her prior to law enforcement being given her name.

Lots of variables at play, but I think the injuries, screams for help and eye witness testimony gets GZ use of reasonable force without having to testify.  The question I think would be whether he needs to testify in order to show he didn't instigate/start the violence.  I think GZ wants to testify, but the defense team is smart enough to know that they aren't going to put him on the stand unless they feel its necessary.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 20, 2012, 10:28:55 AM
ITs even possible her testimony isn't allowed given the Martin's counsel involvement with her prior to law enforcement being given her name.

Why would that be grounds for excluding her testimony?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 20, 2012, 10:36:48 AM
But without Zimmerman to cross examine, I doubt they would have much of an impact. 

Why?

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 20, 2012, 11:08:12 AM
Why?
Zimmerman's statements without and with Zimmerman to cross examine is like an outline for a movie script with the final film.  I think that the prosecution might present a closing summary with a sort of spreadsheet where the columns are various issues like: reason for Z getting out of the car, where Z dropped to the ground, details of the fight, etc. and the rows showing what Zimmerman said at various times as well as what physical evidence says.  The trouble with all that it is still a stretch to use that to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not self defense.  Cross examination gives rise to the possibility that Zimmerman will contradict himself from one second to the next, lose his temper and make the jury feel it has the moral duty to punish him.  I posted yesterday a bunch of questions on his walk from TTL to RVC.  I find it hard to imagine how Zimmerman could answer them (with followups to his answers) without the jury losing any sympathy they may have had for him.  I don't think he won over anybody with his performance handling gentle questioning from Hannity.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 20, 2012, 11:48:10 AM
I guess it depends on the path of questioning.  If there is a way to get it in there by way of scope, I can see it happening.

It later occurred to me that there might be a way to try to get the money-hiding evidence in, and it seems to me that it's right up BDLR's alley. Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt.  I have no idea if it would fly, but note that the time has passed for the defense to challenge Lester's decisions, so all aspects of his bond-hearing ruling presumably still stand. Of course, that approach can be used regardless of whether Zimmerman testifies.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 20, 2012, 11:59:33 AM
Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt. 
Maybe, but if you recall the OJ criminal case, the prosecution never used the bronco chase and the disguise found in the bronco as evidence of consciousness of guilt.  Of course, nowadays, prosecutors regard that case as a model of what not to do.   ;)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 20, 2012, 12:07:31 PM
It later occurred to me that there might be a way to try to get the money-hiding evidence in, and it seems to me that it's right up BDLR's alley. Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt.  I have no idea if it would fly, but note that the time has passed for the defense to challenge Lester's decisions, so all aspects of his bond-hearing ruling presumably still stand. Of course, that approach can be used regardless of whether Zimmerman testifies.

And then there is Shellie.  Would/Could  the Prosecution call her even though she is a spouse?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 20, 2012, 12:23:52 PM
And then there is Shellie.  Would/Could  the Prosecution call her even though she is a spouse?

Even discounting the spousal privilege, Shellie has been charged with a crime related to the money, and would undoubtedly plead the 5th.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 20, 2012, 12:27:39 PM
Maybe, but if you recall the OJ criminal case, the prosecution never used the bronco chase and the disguise found in the bronco as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

I'd forgotten about that. I wonder why. I admittedly know almost nothing about the use of consciousness of guilt as evidence against a defendant. Maybe I'll look into it a bit.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 20, 2012, 12:30:20 PM
Why would that be grounds for excluding her testimony?

Tainted witness (not sure of the appropriate rule).  Just to be clear, I don't know that information exists to come to this conclusion, but I think its possible.  Police asked for access to the phone and were not given access by Martin presumably on counsels advice.  Witness 8 remained silent/unknown until after Martin's lawyers were given access to 911 and Zimmerman's NEN calls and she was contacted and interviewed by Martin's team of lawyers first, not the proper authorities.   Dee Dee hasn't been asked much in the way of details about her contact with Crump or other Martin lawyers, but it has been reported that Dee Dee talked to Crump early on (at funeral or wake).  IF it can be shown that Crump had talked to Dee Dee in early March, chose not to to identify her to police and have her wait to come  forward until after their demands to listen to tapes was met, I think a judge could very well exclude her testimony.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 20, 2012, 12:31:45 PM
Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt. 

Considering BDLR's willingness to stretch the truth, I wouldn't put it past him.  I doubt it would get very far, though, since the Defense could demonstrate that what the Zimmermans did with the money showed an intent to stay (arranging a home with long term contracts on line installations etc.)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 20, 2012, 12:40:42 PM
I'd forgotten about that. I wonder why. I admittedly know almost nothing about the use of consciousness of guilt as evidence against a defendant. Maybe I'll look into it a bit.

This is from Marcia Clark's book, "Without a Doubt":
Quote
Worse, if we introduced the Bronco evidence, it would give the defense an opening to slip in the records of the calls Simpson had made from his cell phone while motoring up the 405. We'd get the tape of Tom Lange talking him in off the freeway, telling him what a wonderful guy he was, how his children needed him; in the background, we'd hear Simpson's groans of anguish. We'd get a parade of witnesses who would recall the tearful protestations of innocence and grief.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 20, 2012, 12:47:39 PM
Why would that be grounds for excluding her testimony?

I've read secondhand reports (perhaps in the Orlando Sentinel)  that O'Mara said he hopes to exclude DeeDee's testimony based on the circumstances surrounding Crump's initial handling of her. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I wonder if that's really what O'Mara said. I wish I could find O'Mara's actual comments. It wouldn't be the first time a reporter misunderstood something.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 20, 2012, 12:50:39 PM
Tainted witness (not sure of the appropriate rule). 

It seems to me these are issues of credibility for the trier of fact, not grounds for exclusion. If I'm to think differently, I would need a citation.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM
I think I am in a minority here about this but without DeeDee, I think the prosecution still has a case, at least as far as the immunity hearing.  Since other evidence seems to contradict that Zimmerman was on the dogpath before the fight started, she establishes little of help to the prosecution.  In my post where I gave an attempt at a prosecution summation for the immunity hearing, I left her input out.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 20, 2012, 01:01:17 PM
Even discounting the spousal privilege, Shellie has been charged with a crime related to the money, and would undoubtedly plead the 5th.

Spousal privilege in Florida is minimal. Only confidential communications are protected.

Fla. Stat. § 90.504 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.504.html)

Would the 5th excuse her from testifying in a case that isn't hers? I think it would just mean the testimony couldn't be used in her trial.

If the prosecution thinks Shellie's testimony would help at all in convicting her husband, I think they would give her immunity in the perjury case.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 20, 2012, 01:12:51 PM
I think I am in a minority here about this but without DeeDee, I think the prosecution still has a case, at least as far as the immunity hearing.  Since other evidence seems to contradict that Zimmerman was on the dogpath before the fight started, she establishes little of help to the prosecution. 

Dee Dee hasn't said Zimmerman was on the dogwalk.

 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 20, 2012, 01:32:55 PM
Dee Dee hasn't said Zimmerman was on the dogwalk.

Not explicitly, but doesn't she place the action near "his father's house"?  Just what is her utility to the prosecution at the immunity hearing?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 20, 2012, 02:09:06 PM
Dee Dee hasn't said Zimmerman was on the dogwalk.

Not explicitly, but doesn't she place the action near "his father's house"?

No.

Dee Dee said Martin told her he was 'right by his father's house', before the interval she glossed over as 'a couple of minutes'. Comparing with other timeline evidence, that could have been a literal two minutes, or somewhat longer. Zimmerman would still be on the phone with the dispatcher for most of that time.

I don't agree with those who take 'right by his father's house' to mean in Brandy Green's back yard, but that's beside the point here. Wherever Martin was at the start of the 'couple of minutes', there was time for him to walk to some unknown point, then turn around and start walking back towards home, and pass through the area where the commotion seems to have started.

That's the theory I would go with, and I think the prosecution might. So far, though, it looks like they are going to brazen through with the simpler story that ignores geography and arithmetic.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 20, 2012, 02:13:32 PM
Would the 5th excuse her from testifying in a case that isn't hers? I think it would just mean the testimony couldn't be used in her trial.

Witnesses can and do take the 5th. That's why prosecutors grant witnesses immunity. There are two types of immunity: transactional and use. Transactional immunity is complete immunity from prosecution, while use immunity prevents the testimony, and information derived through it, from being used against the witness.

I'd forgotten that Florida has a statute that automatically grants use immunity to subpoenaed witnesses:

Quote
914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.—No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to convict him or her of a crime or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 20, 2012, 02:52:04 PM
Not explicitly, but doesn't she place the action near "his father's house"?

No.

Dee Dee said Martin told her he was 'right by his father's house', before the interval she glossed over as 'a couple of minutes'. Comparing with other timeline evidence, that could have been a literal two minutes, or somewhat longer. Zimmerman would still be on the phone with the dispatcher for most of that time.

I don't agree with those who take 'right by his father's house' to mean in Brandy Green's back yard, but that's beside the point here. Wherever Martin was at the start of the 'couple of minutes', there was time for him to walk to some unknown point, then turn around and start walking back towards home, and pass through the area where the commotion seems to have started.

That's the theory I would go with, and I think the prosecution might. So far, though, it looks like they are going to brazen through with the simpler story that ignores geography and arithmetic.

I think the defense will establish that Zimmerman and Martin finally met face to face at almost exactly the same place that Zimmerman, sitting in his truck, saw Martin disappear from, four minutes earlier.  I even think they might accomplish that without having Zimmerman testify.  Is that consistent with what DeeDee says?  What would the prosecution give as an explanation for it that is consistent with DeeDee's narrative?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 20, 2012, 07:47:18 PM
I think the defense will establish that Zimmerman and Martin finally met face to face at almost exactly the same place that Zimmerman, sitting in his truck, saw Martin disappear from, four minutes earlier.  I even think they might accomplish that without having Zimmerman testify.  Is that consistent with what DeeDee says?  What would the prosecution give as an explanation for it that is consistent with DeeDee's narrative?

In all of Dee Dee's statement, she offers very little information about where TM or where GZ were.  She speaks of TM going through the front gate and running  under the mail thingy and she talks of TM being right by his fathers house after losing GZ.  Other than that, she doesn't offer a thing about TM's location.  So whether she testifies or not, the only thing I see that contradicts GZ is TM running in through the front gate and directly to the mail thingy and hanging out there until GZ and TM spot each other.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 20, 2012, 09:47:14 PM
I think the defense will establish that Zimmerman and Martin finally met face to face at almost exactly the same place that Zimmerman, sitting in his truck, saw Martin disappear from, four minutes earlier. I even think they might accomplish that without having Zimmerman testify.

That would be in what I called 'the area where the commotion seems to have started.' This point is supported by several neutral witnesses, and controverted only by a few of Zimmerman's own statements.

The evidence for where Martin disappeared is much weaker. It's only Zimmerman's statements and the police call recording, and the recording is inconclusive apart from the statements. But I know of no evidence that is inconsistent or points to a different place.

Four minutes is about right if I'm interpreting the phone records correctly. Zimmerman seems to have lost sight of Martin about two minutes before his call ended at 7:13:39. The first 911 call connected at 7:16:11.

On Hannity, Zimmerman claimed he encountered Martin within 30 seconds of the end of the police call.

Video, (http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1684439) 0:47-1:50
Quote
ZIMMERMAN: I wanted to make sure that, I believe they asked me for my address. And I wanted to be sure that nobody was lingering and could hear my address and then come back. And I was making sure that there wasn't anybody that was going to surprise me, and just trying to give them an accurate location.

HANNITY: Because they said, you know, can we meet you here at a certain location. And you said have them call me.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

HANNITY: Why did you want them at that point to call you?

ZIMMERMAN: I hadn't given them a correct address. I gave them a, the clubhouse vicinity. However, I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle. And I was going to give them the actual street number and name.

HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because, you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?

ZIMMERMAN: Less than thirty seconds.

In the reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) it took Zimmerman about 20 seconds to walk from where he stopped near RVC to where he said Martin accosted him. (7:08-30)

Quote
Is that consistent with what DeeDee says?

Yes.

Dee Dee said absolutely nothing about the 'couple of minutes', except that they passed. Before this silent period, Martin was 'walking back again'. After it, he became aware of Zimmerman, 'following him again'.

What did Martin do during the 'couple of minutes'? Did he keep walking the whole time? Did he stop walking at some point? Did he run? Skip? Dance a jig? Dee Dee didn't say. De la Rionda didn't ask.

I think O'Mara will ask.

Dee Dee may not have answers, except that she has already relayed everything Martin told her. She might say that, after Martin thought he had lost Zimmerman, they went back to talking about teenage things until Martin became aware of Zimmerman again.

I think Dee Dee will have at least one more thing to say. O'Mara will ask the obvious question that de la Rionda did not. What was Martin doing just before he became aware of Zimmerman, 'following him again'? I think Dee Dee will say that he was going home.

Dee Dee might say a lot more. She could offer some elaborate story to account for Martin's time. She might say he went to some friend's house, knocked at the door, and found no one home. There's no reason she should know much about this friend. It's not likely he would be identified, to be asked if he was home that night or not.

Between those possibilities, Dee Dee might say that Martin said some things she didn't understand at the time, which in the light of other information are hints at what he might have been doing.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 21, 2012, 07:56:55 AM
Dee Dee does say TM is going to run from/for the back of his dad's house because it was easier.  Now this does not guarantee a route of TM heading down the dog walk from the 'T', but its not incompatible with GZ's account.  Could be viewed as corroborating evidence to GZ's statements of where TM disappeared.

I agree, O'Mara will be very interested in what Dee Dee has to say about the couple of minutes between when TM lost GZ and was right by his fathers house until GZ is spotted again.  My guess is the answer will be "I don't remember".

I would think O'Mara would also be interested in what TM did for the 15 or so minutes from the time he ran into the complex and under the mail shelter until GZ places his NEN call.  She has him getting to the mail thingy before the 6:54 call connects.  From the weather report, it doesn't appear that it was raining particularly hard at this point (heaviest rain was around 7:10-7:30 from the weather report.  I can't view the bank videos at work, but I recall at least one showing it raining pretty hard at some point.  Does anyone have recollection for how hard they show it raining around 6:54 and from that point until say 7:15?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 21, 2012, 08:24:47 AM
The evidence for where Martin disappeared is much weaker. It's only Zimmerman's statements and the police call recording, and the recording is inconclusive apart from the statements. But I know of no evidence that is inconsistent or points to a different place.
The NEN call is the one piece of evidence the prosecution is certain to introduce in their case.  I think that everyone will accept that Zimmerman was accurately reporting his observations and opinions on it.  If Zimmerman had Martin in view after the "down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood" and the end of the call almost 2 minutes later, he would have mentioned it on the call.  The fact that Zimmerman could look through the cut through will be established, I expect, by police testimony concerning the position of the parked Ridgeline.  Putting the two together, Martin had to have disappeared down the dogpath since Zimmerman wouldn't, I think, have been able to see that he ran in the direction of the back gate if Martin had turned right on RVC.  Even if I am wrong about the last point and Martin turned right on RVC, he returned to the dogpath through a pass between a block of houses or maybe TTL. 

Now maybe this is all consistent with DeeDee and perhaps Martin and Zimmerman encountered each other finally by accident, without either running after the other.  But I am still left wondering how her account helps the prosecution either at the immunity hearing or at trial.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 21, 2012, 09:15:43 AM


On Hannity, Zimmerman claimed he encountered Martin within 30 seconds of the end of the police call.

Video, (http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1684439) 0:47-1:50


Your interpretation of what Zimmerman means is the only one that makes sense.  If you interpret what Zimmerman says as an answer to Hannity's preceding question, it was 30 seconds after he lost sight of Martin.
Quote
    HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because, you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?

    ZIMMERMAN: Less than thirty seconds.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 21, 2012, 10:10:52 AM
Dee Dee does say TM is going to run from/for the back of his dad's house because it was easier.

No.

She said 'from the back'. She didn't say the back of what.

I doubt she meant he was running from the back of an actual place or thing. I think 'from the back' is some kind of idiomatic expression in her dialect, which needs to be clarified.

I don't know why at least one transcript has 'for' instead of 'from'. If you listen to the recording the word is quite clear, every time she used that expression.

The first time she used that expression, it seemed that Trayvon and Dee Dee were discussing whether he should run 'from the back' or 'to his dad's house', as though these expressions named quite distinct actions. That's around 7:20 on the recording. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on December 21, 2012, 10:32:29 AM
It later occurred to me that there might be a way to try to get the money-hiding evidence in, and it seems to me that it's right up BDLR's alley. Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt.  I have no idea if it would fly, but note that the time has passed for the defense to challenge Lester's decisions, so all aspects of his bond-hearing ruling presumably still stand. Of course, that approach can be used regardless of whether Zimmerman testifies.

I think an argument can be made that intention to flee does not necessarily show consciousness of guilt so much as it shows consciousness of the fact that innocent men get convicted and sent to prison all the time, and that Zimmerman went from thinking that he'd explained everything to the satisfaction of the police that it was self-defense and that there wouldn't be any charges, to it seeming that the entire government of the state of Florida had decided to throw him to the wolves to appease public  opinion.

The guilty may flee when no man pursueth, but so might a man who considers himself innocent if he thinks he's about to be railroaded.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 21, 2012, 10:51:44 AM
Putting the two together, Martin had to have disappeared down the dogpath since Zimmerman wouldn't, I think, have been able to see that he ran in the direction of the back gate if Martin had turned right on RVC. 

I don't understand this. What would Zimmerman have been able to see if Martin turned onto the dogwalk, that he wouldn't have been able to see if Martin ran to RVC before turning? Either way, Martin would have turned right and disappeared behind a building.

The dogwalk doesn't lead to the back entrance. Its southern end is a T, mirroring the one at the north end. Of three possible routes, TTL, RVC, and the dogwalk, TTL is the one that leads to the back entrance if you keep following it.

Absent Zimmerman's statements, the police call is consistent with any of the three, but TTL seemed most likely to me. We discussed this on the blog, before Zimmerman's statements were released.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 21, 2012, 12:26:54 PM
No.

She said 'from the back'. She didn't say the back of what.

I doubt she meant he was running from the back of an actual place or thing. I think 'from the back' is some kind of idiomatic expression in her dialect, which needs to be clarified.

I don't know why at least one transcript has 'for' instead of 'from'. If you listen to the recording the word is quite clear, every time she used that expression.

The first time she used that expression, it seemed that Trayvon and Dee Dee were discussing whether he should run 'from the back' or 'to his dad's house', as though these expressions named quite distinct actions. That's around 7:20 on the recording. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu)

I don't disagree with anything you say.  I used "from/for", because I think when she relays her story and uses the word "from" I think the most likely explanation is that TM means for.  Dee Dee has TM in front of GZ's car, so clearly they aren't talking about running from the back of his car.  She tells him to run to his dad's house which is when TM relays that he's going to run from the back because its "mo easier".  It makes sense that it would be a shorter and more direct route to run to the back of the house if he is near the dog walk and to me it seems like he's confirming to her the suggestion to run to his dad's and that running "from" the back is easier.  I can't think of a more logical explanation given the context of the conversation, information provided by GZ and where the conflict ultimately took place that "from" is her way of saying "for" or "to".

As I said earlier, its not proof of the path he took, but it certainly doesn't conflict with anything GZ says and in the context of it being "more easier", "from the back" most likely means down the dog path to the back of his dad's house.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Lousy1 on December 21, 2012, 12:31:13 PM
I don't understand this. What would Zimmerman have been able to see if Martin turned onto the dogwalk, that he wouldn't have been able to see if Martin ran to RVC before turning? Either way, Martin would have turned right and disappeared behind a building.

The dogwalk doesn't lead to the back entrance. Its southern end is a T, mirroring the one at the north end. Of three possible routes, TTL, RVC, and the dogwalk, TTL is the one that leads to the back entrance if you keep following it.

Absent Zimmerman's statements, the police call is consistent with any of the three, but TTL seemed most likely to me. We discussed this on the blog, before Zimmerman's statements were released.

It is the shortest route to the back gate for pedestrians only. It also affords easy access to the back gate. The dog path seems to be the logical route to the back gate when fleeing or avoiding a man in (or with ) a car.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on December 21, 2012, 12:55:20 PM
Agreed.  If Martin went down TTL towards the back entrance, he wouldn't have been doing anything to avoid GZ who could have seen him for a fair distance on that path and easily could have followed in his car.   I could see potentially going down TTL until he could cut between buildings and end up in the dog walk path. That wouldn't be inconsistent with what Dee Dee relays, but I think she is pretty clearly telling a narrative of TM running to his house, not to the back entrance.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 21, 2012, 01:37:29 PM
I think an argument can be made that intention to flee does not necessarily show consciousness of guilt so much as it shows consciousness of the fact that innocent men get convicted and sent to prison all the time, and that Zimmerman went from thinking that he'd explained everything to the satisfaction of the police that it was self-defense and that there wouldn't be any charges, to it seeming that the entire government of the state of Florida had decided to throw him to the wolves to appease public  opinion.

Though I agree that flight may not really be an indication of guilt, courts have long held that it is, and that's what matters most in a trial. As the Florida supreme court said in Straight v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18072083670866564935&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981):

Quote
When a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight, concealment, resistance to lawful arrest, or other indications after the fact of a desire to evade prosecution, such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstance.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 21, 2012, 02:31:21 PM
If you interpret what Zimmerman says as an answer to Hannity's preceding question, it was 30 seconds after he lost sight of Martin.

Only if you take the question out of context.

Didn't you just say that if Zimmerman saw Martin again before the call ended, you think he would have mentioned it? Did I misunderstand?

Zimmerman told SPD investigators that he was off the phone when Martin spoke to him, and that he was reaching or searching for his phone when Martin hit him. He said those things over and over. They were among the most consistent parts of his story.

My point was that there is a timeline problem with Zimmerman claiming the encounter with Martin was less than 30 seconds after the end of the call. I don't know what your point would be, in suggesting he meant it was even earlier, before the call even ended.

Hannity's question was ambiguous in another way. He might have meant this:

Quote
I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle. And I was going to give them the actual street number and name.

I think it is clear from Zimmerman's SPD statements that he claimed to be on RVC by the time he started giving directions, about 3:00 on the recording. It was a little over 30 seconds later that Zimmerman said 'I don't know where this kid is'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 21, 2012, 03:43:40 PM
NMNM, all I was saying that the interpretation of the 30 seconds as the time between the end of the call and the time Martin comes into view is not obvious from Hannity's question.  It just seems to be the interpretation that comes closest to making Zimmerman's answer make sense.  Unfortunately throughout the interview Hannity's questions are not very precise and he  never has Zimmerman clarify his answers.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 21, 2012, 05:59:05 PM

And as I've posted before: He goes on Hannity and says something to the effect that he'd take it all back or he'd stay in the car or he'd never have even looked twice at that shadowy figure that rainy night--he's just given the entire world rope to fashion a noose with.

Saying what he said? Pretty logical actually.

Maybe not pretty, not warm, not fuzzy, not postmodern PC America, but pretty logical.

Then I guess Zimmerman isn't so logical, since he recanted it at the end of the interview.

Video, Part 2, (http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1684436) 1:18-51
Quote
HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car, to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you, you, had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. I -

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel that it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it -

HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently, in retrospect, now that time has passed a little bit?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

Video, Part 5, (http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1684488) 5:22-6:18
Quote
ZIMMERMAN: First, I'd like to re-address your question, when you asked if I would have done anything differently. When you asked that, I thought you were referring to, if I would not have talked to the police, if I would have maybe have gotten an attorney, if I wouldn't have taken the CVSA. And that I stand by. I would not have done anything differently.

But I do wish that there was something, anything, I could have done that wouldn't have put me in the position where I had to take his life. And I do want to tell everyone, my wife, my family, my parents, my grandmother, the Martins, the city of Stanford, and America that I am sorry that this happened.

I hate to think that because of this incident, because of my actions it's polarized and divided America. And I'm truly sorry.

Hannity explicitly asked Zimmerman if he regretted getting out of the car. Zimmerman seems to think we'll believe anything.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 21, 2012, 06:45:53 PM
I agree, O'Mara will be very interested in what Dee Dee has to say about the couple of minutes between when TM lost GZ and was right by his fathers house until GZ is spotted again.  My guess is the answer will be "I don't remember".

The Crump/Julison line has always been that Martin was going home when Zimmerman 'confronted' him.

Dee Dee seems to follow the C/J line. For example, the C/J line is that Martin went to the 7-11 for the purpose of getting candy and a beverage for Chad. Chad himself said Martin had already decided to go before asking Chad if he wanted anything, and I don't think Chad ever said he asked for the beverage. Dee Dee's statements match C/J, not Chad.

When Dee Dee is asked to clarify what Martin was doing before the confrontation, I think she will say he was going home.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: spectator on December 22, 2012, 01:59:04 AM
Then I guess Zimmerman isn't so logical, since he recanted it at the end of the interview.

Video, Part 2, (http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1684436) 1:18-51
Video, Part 5, (http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1684488) 5:22-6:18
Hannity explicitly asked Zimmerman if he regretted getting out of the car. Zimmerman seems to think we'll believe anything.


Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: spectator on December 22, 2012, 02:16:04 AM
There's all kinds of people out there that have different opinions and see things in their own unique way.

Zimmerman's actions and his words have been criticized & twisted by so many Monday morning quarterbacks, it's truly hilarious.

It's easy for some folks to criticize George but they also struggle to understand the basic nuances of life and common sense.



Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 22, 2012, 08:12:02 AM
Then I guess Zimmerman isn't so logical, since he recanted it at the end of the interview.

Video, Part 2, (http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1684436) 1:18-51
Video, Part 5, (http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=channels/400391/1684488) 5:22-6:18
Hannity explicitly asked Zimmerman if he regretted getting out of the car. Zimmerman seems to think we'll believe anything.

What's the matter, Skippy, miss me, gotta go back a few days to try and prove something or start something?

You can of course read that as GZ "recanting", but it's not really. It's expanding and amplifying. And he's always said he was sorry he had to kill TM, so I'm not certain what your issue with what he said is.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 22, 2012, 09:22:26 AM
You can of course read that as GZ "recanting", but it's not really. It's expanding and amplifying. And he's always said he was sorry he had to kill TM, so I'm not certain what your issue with what he said is.

So in this statement of Zimmerman's
Quote
But I do wish that there was something, anything, I could have done that wouldn't have put me in the position where I had to take his life.
the something, anything, didn't include going back to the car instead of forward to RVC to see if he could get a peek of Martin running towards the back entrance after he told the dispatcher, "okay" or better, moving the car towards the back entrance, etc.?  Zimmerman's insistence that he wouldn't, even after having much time to think about it, do anything differently might not sit too well with a judge and jury.  The prosecution's biggest asset, by far, is Zimmerman himself.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 22, 2012, 09:37:23 AM
I don't understand this. What would Zimmerman have been able to see if Martin turned onto the dogwalk, that he wouldn't have been able to see if Martin ran to RVC before turning? Either way, Martin would have turned right and disappeared behind a building.

The dogwalk doesn't lead to the back entrance. Its southern end is a T, mirroring the one at the north end. Of three possible routes, TTL, RVC, and the dogwalk, TTL is the one that leads to the back entrance if you keep following it.

Absent Zimmerman's statements, the police call is consistent with any of the three, but TTL seemed most likely to me. We discussed this on the blog, before Zimmerman's statements were released.

Under the lighting conditions that evening, I was guessing that Zimmerman from his car could see Martin turn right, down the dogpath but not right, down RVC.  Just how far is the distance from where we think Zimmemran was parked to each of those routes?  Zimmerman said 100 feet to RVC on Hannity and I am wondering how far off that was.   What you say makes it even clearer that moving the car down TTL towards the back entrance would have made much more sense than getting out and walking to RVC.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 09:56:17 AM
Under the lighting conditions that evening, I was guessing that Zimmerman from his car could see Martin turn right, down the dogpath but not right, down RVC. 

A long time ago, someone found an article (http://www.roadtripamerica.com/forum/content.php?31) on things drivers should know about headlights. It gives the average range of high beam headlights as 'about 350 feet'. The distance from Zimmerman's truck to RVC looks to be about 280 feet on Google Earth.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 22, 2012, 10:06:21 AM
A long time ago, someone found an article (http://www.roadtripamerica.com/forum/content.php?31) on things drivers should know about headlights. It gives the average range of high beam headlights as 'about 350 feet'. The distance from Zimmerman's truck to RVC looks to be about 280 feet on Google Earth.

I guess then we will have to wait for confirmation from the police that Zimmerman's headlights were pointed down the cut through towards RVC.  As I said before, which road Martin turned right on isn't so important since if it was RVC, he undoubtedly returned to the dogpath before Zimmemman could see him on RVC.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
he undoubtedly returned to the dogpath before Zimmemman could see him on RVC.

Why do you say that?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 10:46:01 AM
I guess then we will have to wait for confirmation from the police that Zimmerman's headlights were pointed down the cut through towards RVC. 

I think you may have forgotten the point we were arguing.

I don't have to show that Zimmerman's headlights were actually illuminating RVC. You have to show that they couldn't have been, if you want argue which route Martin took without using Zimmerman's interview statements.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 22, 2012, 11:07:13 AM
To clarify and summarize my argument about what we know without Zimmerman's testimony, we can be sure that, during the call, Zimmerman didn't see Martin on RVC or anywhere else after he got out of the car or else he would have told the dispatcher.  What Martin's exact route was is not important.  We know that it started and ended at the dogpath north "T" and was approximately of a four minute duration.  He could have gone down the dogpath to Brandy Green's condo and back during to four minutes without Zimmerman seeing him.  Zimmerman was off the very dark dogpath during that period since he had only the use of a tiny keychain flashlight to see where he was going and also look for Martin. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 01:02:10 PM
What Martin's exact route was is not important. 

It was you who kicked off this round of discussion, by suggesting that the defense could show where Martin disappeared without using Zimmerman's interview statements. I don't know if doing that would be of any use to them.

 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 22, 2012, 01:54:27 PM
It was you who kicked off this round of discussion, by suggesting that the defense could show where Martin disappeared without using Zimmerman's interview statements. I don't know if doing that would be of any use to them.
I think more then where he disappeared the defense would like to show when it happened.  If they could argue that it was approximately at the time Zimmerman said "Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood" and the car door closes at about 7:11:45 PM, then they could argue that Martin was out of Zimmerman's sight for about 4 minutes, giving him plenty of time to go home with Zimmerman unable to view him doing that.  I think that geography shows that the only way Zimmerman would have said what he did on the call was for Martin to had turned south down either the dogpath or Retreat View Circle.  I am dismissing the possibility that that Martin ran down TTL while Zimmerman walked in the cut through towards RVC because then, Zimmerman would not have admitted to the dispatcher that he was following Martin.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 02:38:02 PM
then they could argue that Martin was out of Zimmerman's sight for about 4 minutes, giving him plenty of time to go home with Zimmerman unable to view him doing that.

From the T to Brandy Green's back door is about 380 feet, a minute and a quarter at an average walk. They don't need nearly 4 minutes.

Quote
I am dismissing the possibility that that Martin ran down TTL while Zimmerman walked in the cut through towards RVC because then, Zimmerman would not have admitted to the dispatcher that he was following Martin.

He might, if he was going to RVC expecting to see Martin crossing it on his way to the back gate. Zimmerman could also have chased Martin south on TTL.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 22, 2012, 03:18:23 PM
He might, if he was going to RVC expecting to see Martin crossing it on his way to the back gate. Zimmerman could also have chased Martin south on TTL.

I don't agree that Zimmerman would have said "Yeah" to "Are you following him" if the situation was Martin running down TTL while Zimmerman walking perpendicularly to TTL.  He would only have said "Yeah" if he was at a spot at which Martin was previously.  For the second scenario, I can't imagine a chase down TTL with Zimmerman on foot.  Why would he have gotten out of the car instead of moving it like he did between the clubhouse and the cut through?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 03:44:16 PM
Why would he have gotten out of the car instead of moving it like he did between the clubhouse and the cut through?

I've often wondered why Zimmerman would park his car where he claims to have left it. Why not pull all the way up to the cut through? None of the SPD investigators bothered to ask.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 22, 2012, 04:02:56 PM
I've often wondered why Zimmerman would park his car where he claims to have left it. Why not pull all the way up to the cut through? None of the SPD investigators bothered to ask.

To which of his statements are you referring?  I thought he said he parked at the cut through so that his headlights illuminated it. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 04:19:56 PM
To which of his statements are you referring? 

Zimmerman indicated the parking location twice. The first time was in the second part of the first interview, when he marked the map (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630981402972/) for Singleton. The second time was in the reenactment. The locations agree closely. I would say about 50 to 60 feet west of where he could have parked, to be as close as possible to the cut through.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 22, 2012, 04:59:27 PM
TTL make a ninety degree right turn just after where he says he parked so the headlights wouldn't illuminate the cut through had he parked closer to its start.  The sixth of the maps in the NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html) shows this well.  Had Trayvon entered the cut through before Zimmerman stopped there?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 05:23:58 PM
TTL make a ninety degree right turn just after where he says he parked so the headlights wouldn't illuminate the cut through had he parked closer to its start.

I think Zimmerman could have pulled up another 30 feet or so before that was a problem.



Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 22, 2012, 10:06:32 PM
Had Trayvon entered the cut through before Zimmerman stopped there?

Good question. Zimmerman didn't say.

This is one of the most variable parts of his story.

2/26-1, 11:06-29
Quote
Zimmerman: The dispatcher, whoever answered the phone, asked me where they went. And I said I wasn't sure because I lost visual of him when he went in between houses. And he said "Well, can you tell me what direction he went?" And I said "Not really." And then all of a sudden I see him circling my car.

2/26-2, 3:19-36
Quote
Singleton: We're just, we're gonna X this one out, because it's not where you meant. You meant that you came around here, and ended up here.

Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.

Singleton: OK. OK. You ended up here. And then, is that when he circles your car?

Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.

Singleton: He comes out from where?

Zimmerman: I don't know.

Singleton: OK. All of a sudden you just notice he's circling your car?

Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.

Audio (http://www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/19101074/article-Video--audio-tell-George-Zimmerman%E2%80%99s-account-of-Trayvon-Martin-shooting-?instance=home_news_right) of SPD Interviews

Written Statement, (http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/312/assets/40ZK_written_statement_0226.pdf) pp. 1-2
Quote
I pulled my vehicle over and called SPD non-emergency phone number. I told the dispatcher what I had witnessed, the dispatcher took note of my location & the suspect fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk, as the dispatcher was asking me for an exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness & circled my vehicle.

Reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 3:33-42
Quote
Zimmerman: And I saw him walking back that way, and then cut through the back of the houses. He looked back, and he noticed me, and he cut back through the houses.

CVSA, (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/statements/video_interview_cvsa_0227.asf) 26:55-27:47, 6:45:32-6:46:24
Quote
Zimmerman: The operator asked me if I could get to somewhere where I could see, or at least give them a direction of where he was headed. 

Erwin: Mmhmm.

Zimmerman: And I said "Yes." So I pulled out, and I drove adjacent to the clubhouse. And, I was unfamiliar with the street name. The operator asked me what street I was on. And it's not the street that I live on. It's a side street that cuts through the neighborhood. And I told him I didn't know. And, they said, "We need to know -" When I was at the clubhouse, I gave them the clubhouse address. And, they're like, "We need to know what house you're in front of." And I said, "Listen, if you come to the clubhouse, go straight, and left, and you'll see me there." At this point the guy walked around my car.

The first version, in 2/26-1, is consistent with the reenactment, though not as clear. In the reenactment, Zimmerman indicated with hand gestures that Martin went southward, 'through the back of the houses', which would mean the dogwalk.

In the written statement, Martin 'fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk'. That could be the area around the T, if for some reason it was not illuminated by Zimmerman's headlights. (Illustration) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7879890510/in/photostream)

In 2/26-2 and the CVSA, Zimmerman didn't mention seeing Martin walking away as he parked his truck. He didn't see Martin until the Great Circling, which in 2/26-2 seems to have happened as soon as the car was parked.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 27, 2012, 10:23:06 PM
To win immunity, the defense will have to show one of two things: that Zimmerman was not the aggressor, or that he was unable to retreat. I expect the prosecution to contest both.

Beside arguing the implausibility of Zimmerman being unable to rid himself of Martin's 158 lb. frame, they have this from W-6:

FDLE, 3/20, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvBZicWPDE) 34:23-35:04
Quote
W-6: And then, if you were the person on the bottom, I'm not sure if he was holding onto the guy on the top, or if he was trying, because it looks like he was trying to get up. From the one point when I do see him, finally, because I only see one guy at first, it looks like the other guy was trying to get up, because, I mean, his back was raised off of the ground at that point. So it looked like he was trying to get up at that point. But, I don't know, I couldn't see his hands. The guy on the bottom, I couldn't see where his hands were. So I don't know if they were on the other guy's sweatshirt, or, if he was, you know, trying to actually push off of him, or anything like that. I couldn't see the other guy's hands.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 27, 2012, 11:42:44 PM
To win immunity, the defense will have to show one of two things: that Zimmerman was not the aggressor, or that he was unable to retreat. I expect the prosecution to contest both.

Beside arguing the implausibility of Zimmerman being unable to rid himself of Martin's 158 lb. frame, they have this from W-6:

FDLE, 3/20, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvBZicWPDE) 34:23-35:04

I don't see what's implausible about the somewhat out-of-shape Zimmerman not being able to get Martin off him, and I'm not sure why you think W6's comments are evidence that he could. W6 says Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Do you think it's plausible that Zimmerman wanted Martin to be sitting on him? If not, why was Martin still on top if Zimmerman could have gotten his 158 lb. frame off him?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 28, 2012, 12:24:12 AM
At the risk of contracting diabetes from its cloying prose, I reread the Esquire article on Martin, and noticed some remarks from some high-school football players he'd played against that relate to nomatter_nevermind's comment and my reply:

Quote
He was a cool kid. He didn't start no trouble.

He was a good linebacker. Like, if you hit against him—

—Your helmet comin' off.

I remember the first time he hit me. I started cryin' like, "I ain't playin' with him no more."

Trayvon said, Toughen up.

He blitzed me. I didn't want him to blitz no more.

F'real.

I stay out of his way. I try to trip him, but it ain't working.

They aren't exactly in harmony with the family's tales of a frail string bean.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 12:55:42 AM
I don't see what's implausible about the somewhat out-of-shape Zimmerman not being able to get Martin off him

Is there evidence for Zimmerman being 'somewhat out-of-shape'?

Zimmerman's medical records are a part of the evidence that I have to admit I've neglected.

A commenter (http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/31/zimmerman-witnesses-practicum-by-patricia-with-update-on-character-assassination-efforts/#comment-17270) on Leatherman's blog has said that Zimmerman had a gym membership, but she couldn't remember where she heard that.

Quote
I'm not sure why you think W6's comments are evidence that he could.

I don't. That's not what I said.

W-6's comments are a separate point, which in conjunction with the other supports a theory that it was Zimmerman preventing Martin from escaping.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 01:33:39 AM
At the risk of contracting diabetes from its cloying prose, I reread the Esquire article on Martin, and noticed some remarks from some high-school football players he'd played against

Quote
He was a good linebacker.

The same article quotes 'Uncle Stephen' saying Martin played 'defensive end', a more likely position for his build. It would also suggest he was a good runner.

On the other side of the scale, another player would be more likely to know what position Martin played.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 28, 2012, 02:09:55 AM
W-6's comments are a separate point, which in conjunction with the other supports a theory that it was Zimmerman preventing Martin from escaping.

How are W6's comments evidence that Zimmerman was preventing Martin from escaping? In response to being questioned specifically about what each person was doing with their hands, W6 said:

Quote
And then, if you were the person on the bottom, I'm not sure if he was holding onto the guy on the top, or if he was trying, because it looks like he was trying to get up.

If you interpret the bolded "he" as referring to Martin, it does sound like Zimmerman may have been trying to prevent Martin's escape. If you interpret "he" as referring to Zimmerman, W6 seems to be saying he couldn't see Zimmerman's hands to tell whether he was trying to hold on to Martin, but his actions of trying to get up were inconsistent with that. From the surrounding context, "he" clearly refers to Zimmerman. For instance, W6 says he thought the person was trying to get up because his back was off the ground. That could only fit the one on the bottom, Zimmerman.  I would hazard a guess to say W6 had heard stories that Zimmerman was trying to detain Martin, and had that in mind, basically saying that's now how it looked to him. In any case, nothing else W6 says in the interview supports the somewhat absurd notion that Zimmerman had Martin right where he wanted him: on top, with Zimmerman on his back.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 28, 2012, 02:52:19 AM
... on top, with Zimmerman on his [Zimmerman's] back.

After mentioning W6's ambiguous pronoun reference, I add a worse example.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 03:27:28 AM
How are W6's comments evidence that Zimmerman was preventing Martin from escaping?

They aren't. They support an argument that the possibility cannot be excluded. That's enough for the immunity hearing, where the defense has the burden of proof.

I think this point will also be part of the prosecution's effort to get beyond reasonable doubt. It will take some time to explain that, to bring in all the pieces of the puzzle and discuss how they fit together. I'm working on it.

Quote
If you interpret the bolded "he" as referring to Martin

I don't.

Quote
In any case, nothing else W6 says in the interview supports the somewhat absurd notion that Zimmerman had Martin right where he wanted him

Straw man.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 28, 2012, 08:22:26 AM
They aren't. They support an argument that the possibility cannot be excluded. That's enough for the immunity hearing, where the defense has the burden of proof.

I think this point will also be part of the prosecution's effort to get beyond reasonable doubt. It will take some time to explain that, to bring in all the pieces of the puzzle and discuss how they fit together. I'm working on it.

I don't.

Straw man.

How do you figure it is a straw man?  W6 was very consistent with his original statement to LE.  He always had Zimmerman on the bottom of the altercation.  Zimmerman has the injuries to support, not only his statement that he was assaulted, but also supports the statements by W6.

The few places that W6 seemed to backtrack a little came from an interview that lasted around 4-5 hours.  If you have never had the honor of sitting on the other side of the table during one of those, I don't think you would understand.

The person doing the questioning is always the adversary.  You can wrap that pig up with ribbons and bows and it is still going to be a well-decorated pig.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 28, 2012, 09:26:25 AM
The few places that W6 seemed to backtrack a little came from an interview that lasted around 4-5 hours.  If you have never had the honor of sitting on the other side of the table during one of those, I don't think you would understand.

The person doing the questioning is always the adversary.  You can wrap that pig up with ribbons and bows and it is still going to be a well-decorated pig.

The interview by John Bachelor of the FDLE and Jim Post of the SAO lasted 45 minutes.  Bachelor is a pro investigator.  Just compare him with BDLR.   I just wish he probed more into the echo-y yell business.  Please post some confirmation that there was a 4-5 interview of W6.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 28, 2012, 09:36:31 AM
They aren't. They support an argument that the possibility cannot be excluded. That's enough for the immunity hearing, where the defense has the burden of proof.

No, it's not enough.  The defense has the burden of proof, but only to a preponderance of the evidence.  The state would have to show that the other scenario is at least equally likely, just being possible isn't enough.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 28, 2012, 09:46:05 AM
No, it's not enough.  The defense has the burden of proof, but only to a preponderance of the evidence.  The state would have to show that the other scenario is at least equally likely, just being possible isn't enough.

Anybody have real world experience of not being able to get off a person on the bottom of you who was holding onto your shirt?  I assume you didn't mind getting the shirt ripped.   ;D  I think the prosecution has to use the hypothesis that Zimmerman had his gun out and Martin was trying to prevent him from firing it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: SuzieTampa on December 28, 2012, 09:51:08 AM
NM_NM, do you think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, at least? I'm just curious.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 28, 2012, 12:40:40 PM
Straw man.

I don't think that's quite true. Your theory seems to be that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin was trying to get off, but Zimmerman was holding him down. If Zimmerman didn't think the situation was to his advantage, he'd let go.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 12:50:35 PM
In any case, nothing else W6 says in the interview supports the somewhat absurd notion that Zimmerman had Martin right where he wanted him: on top, with Zimmerman on his back.

Straw man.

How do you figure it is a straw man?

I didn't make the claim that was implicitly attributed to me.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 01:00:56 PM
The few places that W6 seemed to backtrack a little . . . The person doing the questioning is always the adversary.

I think it is insulting to W-6 to imply that he has an agenda. I see him as a very thoughtful and conscientious witness, trying very hard to report what he observed accurately, and to separate out his opinions and inferences from his observations. I expect him to be one of the most credible witnesses in the case.

I suspect the prosecution is digging hard for dirt on him. But if they can't discredit him, they will make the best they can of his testimony.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 01:11:53 PM
They support an argument that the possibility cannot be excluded. That's enough for the immunity hearing, where the defense has the burden of proof.

The defense has the burden of proof, but only to a preponderance of the evidence. 

That's correct. Apologies for careless wording.

I think the prosecution will argue that the two points together, that Martin was a comparative lightweight, and that W-6 couldn't see that Zimmerman wasn't gripping Martin's sweatshirt, add up to at least an equal likelihood that Zimmerman was restraining Martin.

I'm not saying I would buy that myself. If I were a prosecutor, I would argue it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 01:39:26 PM
I assume you didn't mind getting the shirt ripped.   ;D 

Sweatshirts don't tear that easily, in my experience.

W-6 only saw a few seconds of the struggle. Zimmerman could have been restraining Martin with wrestling holds for most of it, then grabbed his shirt because he had almost slipped away.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 01:44:10 PM
If Zimmerman didn't think the situation was to his advantage, he'd let go.

I do not understand the idiom 'right where he wanted him' to mean the least bad of two undesirable situations.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 02:04:13 PM
NM_NM, do you think GZ is guilty of manslaughter, at least?

No.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 28, 2012, 02:07:16 PM
I do not understand the idiom 'right where he wanted him' to mean the least bad of two undesirable situations.

If someone were sitting on top of me, I'd consider not having them on top of me a very desirable alternative. I'd have to have a pretty strong reason to not let them get off.

I think it's incorrect to believe that if W6 testimony doesn't exclude the possibility that Zimmerman was holding Martin down, that the evidence for and against that hypothesis balances out. It's hard to believe Zimmerman would try to keep Martin on top of him. Therefore, without a pretty good reason to believe he was, the logical conclusion is that he wasn't.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 03:13:13 PM
It's hard to believe Zimmerman would try to keep Martin on top of him.

You keep pounding the same straw man. It's not that Zimmerman would have wanted Martin on top of him. It's that keeping Martin from escaping would have been a higher priority than reversing their positions. Zimmerman might have been trying to do that as well, which W-6 interpreted as his trying to sit up.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 28, 2012, 03:48:02 PM
I remember years ago on another forum, someone mentioned the whole "straw man" bit--and thereafter there were a couple of people who became so infatuated with it they'd respond to almost every argument with "straw man!".

A person honestly taking what your words meant when they were read is not guilty of 'pounding the same straw man'. If you didn't mean it that way--than you should probably look to your own phrasing--because apparently that's how it read to MJW, DFH and to me.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 28, 2012, 04:39:04 PM
You keep pounding the same straw man. It's not that Zimmerman would have wanted Martin on top of him. It's that keeping Martin from escaping would have been a higher priority than reversing their positions. Zimmerman might have been trying to do that as well, which W-6 interpreted as his trying to sit up.

Well, if keeping Martin from escaping was a higher priority than reversing their positions, then Zimmerman wanted Martin on top of him because he preferred it to the alternative of allowing Martin to escape. I don't see why, given the ease which you feel Zimmerman could have overpowered Martin's 158 lb. frame, Zimmerman didn't have the best of both worlds: Martin underneath him, and unable to escape.

If Martin actually were trying to escape, wouldn't it have been obvious to W6? I think he'd notice Martin straining to get away, and Zimmerman trying to prevent it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 07:24:19 PM
given the ease which you feel Zimmerman could have overpowered Martin's 158 lb. frame

I haven't said anything about what I 'feel' on this point. I'm talking about what the prosecution might argue, which is the subject of the thread.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 28, 2012, 08:09:20 PM
I think the prosecution has to use the hypothesis that Zimmerman had his gun out and Martin was trying to prevent him from firing it.

Do you mean for the time W-6 was watching? Or do you mean they have to argue that Zimmerman displaying the gun was the reason for the struggle and the screaming?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 28, 2012, 08:20:07 PM
The idea that the guy that was just punched in the face and was on the bottom would want to keep his attacker on top is very hard to swallow. Besides, with GZ's hands occupied holding TM in place I would have expected far more damage to GZ's face as TM would certainly have let loose. He obviously didn't have any aversion to throwing hard punches and would be especially motivated to throw many.

Personally I think that after the first real punch and getting on top, TM was more interested in GZ's fear and dominating GZ. I think his subsequent punches and actions were more intended to aggravate GZ's pain and create fear than actually do a lot more damage.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 28, 2012, 08:47:52 PM
Do you mean for the time W-6 was watching? Or do you mean they have to argue that Zimmerman displaying the gun was the reason for the struggle and the screaming?
I can't see any way for the prosecution to assert Trayvon was screaming unless they say Zimmerman had his gun out, at least for the duration of the screams.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 28, 2012, 08:53:49 PM
I am trying to pin down the first time Zimmerman made the claim that the reason for his on foot trip from his car to RVC was to find an address on RVC.  So far it seems to be the walkthrough on the afternoon of the 27th was his first mention of that.  Am I correct?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 28, 2012, 09:02:43 PM
I am trying to pin down the first time Zimmerman made the claim that the reason for his on foot trip from his car to RVC was to find an address on RVC.  So far it seems to be the walkthrough on the afternoon of the 27th was his first mention of that.  Am I correct?

He mentions it to Singleton the night of the shooting.

Quote
Zimmerman: I got out of my vehicle to look at this house’s address, and see if there was a sign there.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: There wasn’t.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: So I walked through the dog walk to see if there was a sign here
Singleton: OK
Zimmerman: or an address that I could make out easier.

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=996
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 28, 2012, 10:42:57 PM
I haven't said anything about what I 'feel' on this point. I'm talking about what the prosecution might argue, which is the subject of the thread.

My comment was intended to point out a problem with arguing Zimmerman could have gotten out from under Martin if he'd really wanted to. Perhaps I should have attributed the "feeling" to the hypothetical prosecutor instead of you, but my point would have been the same: if Zimmerman had such a physical advantage over Martin, why did he stay on the bottom, and why was he on the bottom in the first place?

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 01:39:08 AM
I am trying to pin down the first time Zimmerman made the claim that the reason for his on foot trip from his car to RVC was to find an address on RVC. 

He mentions it to Singleton the night of the shooting.

I think this is the first time Zimmerman said explicitly that he was looking for a street sign or address on RVC. His first recounting of this part of the story is ambiguous on that point.

2/29-1, 12:28-13:21
Quote
Zimmerman: I didn't know the name of the street, or where he went. So I got out of my car, to look for a street sign, and to see if I could see where he cut through so that I could tell the police [crosstalk].

Singleton: So after he circled your car he disappeared again?

Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.

Singleton: OK.

Zimmerman: Then, dispatcher told me "Where are you?" And I said "I'm trying to find out where he went." And, he said "We don't need you to do that." And I said "OK". He said "We already have a police officer en route." And I said "Alright." And I, I had gone where, through the dog walk where I normally walk my dog, and, walked back through to my street, the street that loops around. And he said "We already have a police officer on the way." So I said "OK." I told, they said, "Would you like a police officer to meet you?" And I said, "Yes." And I told them where my car was, and the make and the model.


Zimmerman indicated that he had reached RVC by the time the dispatcher told him he didn't need to find/follow Martin. That would be over 250 feet in 15 seconds or less, at least 17 feet per second.

In the reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) Zimmerman seemed to be about to say the same thing, then corrected himself and indicated he was still walking east on the crosswalk at that time. (6:09-42)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 09:50:27 AM
In the reenactment video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4), at about the 5 minute point, Zimmerman and the investigator have just left the SUV.  As they face the cut through, the houses to the left of the cut though have their back side showing while the houses on the right show the front where the addresses would be.  Zimmerman just ignores that and gives the BS about why he had to go to RVC for an address.  This is from a transcript with commentary: (http://crimewatchers.forumotion.com/t85-transcript-of-video-reenactment-2-27-12)
Quote
Zimmerman...I was on the phone with non-emergency and I started walking down this way, and because I didn't see a street sign here but I knew if I went straight through that that's Retreat View Circle and I can give them an address. And he said just give me the address of the house you are in front of. And there's no address because this is the back of the houses
(Now he is saying this whille his back to the other townhouses that are on the other side of the sidewalk, which IMO he is doing on purpose because if you walk past the side walk, those are the FRONT of those townhouses which he could have easily gone to for an "address and I'm sure the Investigator took note of that)

Why in subsequent interviews, Serino didn't crucify Zimmerman over this gibberish, remains a mystery.  The even bigger joke is that Zimmerman didn't even need to get a street name or address.  The directions that he, while still in the truck, gave the dispatcher would have gotten the police to him.
Quote
1:45:65 - When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you'd – would
go past the clubhouse— [he's trying to explain his location on Twin Trees, southeast of the clubhouse,
not at the clubhouse itself].
1:54:26 - Okay, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?
1:57:62 - No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight
in, don't turn and make a left –
  One gets the layout from the 5th map in the NY Times overview (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html?ref=trayvonmartin).  The dispatcher didn't ask for the address where his car was parked until over a minute after Zimmerman had exited the car.  In the walkthrough, Zimmerman is trying to retroactively use that question to justify his going into the cut through to the investigators. 
 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 11:18:55 AM
One would think the prosecution would try to push, as much as possible, that Zimmerman's lying about relatively minor matters like why he got out of the car, implies that he lied about the major things like Martin initiating an unprovoked physical attack on him.  Although we may dismiss such reasoning, apparently even judges make such leaps.  I have never seen any explanation why Judge Lester characterized the evidence against Zimmerman as "strong".  Could it be just an extension of his anger over what he thought were Zimmerman's deliberate lies about what funds he had available? 

O'Mara said, "We will have to deal with them.", when he referred to the contradictions in various Zimmerman accounts of events.  If somehow he is forced to have Zimmerman testify, will he lay down the law to him about continuing to insist that he got out of the car to get an address for the dispatcher?  How bad would it be for Zimmerman to just say, "I lied.  I was feeling so guilty about not returning to the car when the dispatcher suggested I do that."?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 11:23:28 AM
In the reenactment video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4), at about the 5 minute point, Zimmerman and the investigator have just left the SUV.  As they face the cut through, the houses to the left of the cut though have their back side showing while the houses on the right show the front where the addresses would be.  Zimmerman just ignores that and gives the BS about why he had to go to RVC for an address. 

That part I don't think is nearly as big of an issue as it seems.  George seemed to have a problem with getting ahead of himself, and trying to relate the narrative around the moments that stood out the most.

In that case, George had just gotten ahead past where he admitted following, and once George remembered it near RVC, corrected himself, with an "Oh yeah, back there is where dispatcher asked if I was following and I said yes" (paraphrased).

So, the Defense shouldn't have any issue explaining that George got out, followed to near the T, got advised not to follow, and it was AFTER that when the dispatcher asked for an address, and of course, at that point there was no address in view (he was behind the houses by the T), and told dispatcher that it's a cut through so he didn't know an address, at which point he decided to go to RVC.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 11:48:07 AM
So, the Defense shouldn't have any issue explaining that George got out, followed to near the T, got advised not to follow, and it was AFTER that when the dispatcher asked for an address, and of course, at that point there was no address in view (he was behind the houses by the T), and told dispatcher that it's a cut through so he didn't know an address, at which point he decided to go to RVC.

Quote
2:25:20 - Okay, we don't need you to do that.
2:27:75 - Okay.
.........
3:18:39 - [crosstalk: unintelligible] Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?
3:21:60 – [mild tap] Um, I don't know. It's a cut-through so I don't know the address.

It seems that even on the NEN call he is lying because he knows damn well that the houses in front of his car have addresses.  So why does he go to RVC to get the address where his car is parked on TTL?  That is just nuts.   He could also never have gotten out of the car and told the dispatcher that after the police turn left after the clubhouse, his car would be the only one with lights on.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 12:06:46 PM
It seems that even on the NEN call he is lying because he knows damn well that the houses in front of his car have addresses. 

I don't see any reason to assume that would have crossed his mind at the time the dispatcher asked him for an address.  Considering how dark it was, where his truck was facing and what was illuminated, he likely didn't see an address while going in.

He tried and struggled with explaining where he was while he was still in the truck, tried again while he was at the T where he was asked for an address (with none visible),  and there's no reason to conclude that he was lying on the NEN call.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 01:04:37 PM
It seems that even on the NEN call he is lying because he knows damn well that the houses in front of his car have addresses.

In the CVSA, (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/statements/video_interview_cvsa_0227.asf) he said he didn't see a house number because the truck already parked there blocked his view.

28:40-54, 6:47:17-31
Quote
And I got out of my car to look for a street sign, so that I could at least tell them what street I was on. And, there was no street sign, and I couldn't make out the house in front of me because there was a big pickup truck there.

At first I thought Zimmerman meant that he preferred walking to RVC to walking around the truck. On reflection, there is a more sensible interpretation. He might have meant to say that he didn't realize that those houses faced the street until he saw them in daylight, during the reenactment. He then conjectured that he missed seeing the nearest house number because of the truck.

To be clear, I don't believe Zimmerman was looking for an address at that time, or at any time that night.

Quote
He could also never have gotten out of the car and told the dispatcher that after the police turn left after the clubhouse, his car would be the only one with lights on.

Is that something Zimmerman is supposed to have said when the dispatcher was talking over him? I know he said something after 'They'll see my truck', while the dispatcher was asking for the address. I've never been able to make it out. I think he was giving the make, model, and color, as he mentioned a few times in the SPD interviews.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 29, 2012, 01:17:04 PM
It seems that even on the NEN call he is lying because he knows damn well that the houses in front of his car have addresses.  So why does he go to RVC to get the address where his car is parked on TTL?  That is just nuts.   He could also never have gotten out of the car and told the dispatcher that after the police turn left after the clubhouse, his car would be the only one with lights on.

I think that shows how faulty your assumptions are. It simply isn't credible that Zimmerman was lying when he said he didn't know the address because it was a cut-through. It makes no sense.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 02:04:13 PM
The dispatcher didn't ask for the address where his car was parked until over a minute after Zimmerman had exited the car.

Earlier discussion, starting here. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg101736.html#msg101736)

I kicked it off with this:

Quote
After Zimmerman said 'OK', he claims to have gone to Retreat View Circle, in search of an address which Sean had not yet asked for.

Everything Zimmerman claims to have done for the sake of that address, was actually done before the address was asked for.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 02:11:35 PM
I think that shows how faulty your assumptions are. It simply isn't credible that Zimmerman was lying when he said he didn't know the address because it was a cut-through. It makes no sense.

I read it differently than you.  He was trying to deceive the operator into thinking there were no addresses near where his car was parked.  As far as the operator knew, Zimmerman had gone back to his truck when he said "Okay" a minute previously.  He didn't want to admit that in his mind he had really said then, "F.Y., I am going to keeping going past the dogwalk and on to RVC to see if I can get a peek at the suspect".  After the call, Zimmerman kept 'looking for an address" as his excuse for getting out of the car even though the request for the address was made a minute after he had decided to get out to follow Martin, as he admitted when he answered "yeah" to the dispatcher's question about that.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 29, 2012, 02:24:36 PM
Earlier discussion, starting here. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg101736.html#msg101736)

I kicked it off with this:

Though Zimmerman may not have been asked for an address or directions while he was still in his vehicle, he obviously thought they were important and tries to give them. His very first comment to Sean includes, "Um, the best address I can give you is one-eleven Retreat View Circle." Later, after Sean says, "Yeah, we've got him on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else," Zimmerman replies, "When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you'd – would go past the clubhouse—," as if he'd been asked for directions. I find it very easy to see why Zimmerman would have later thought he'd been asked for an address, even though he hadn't. Obviously, even before he got out of his vehicle, Zimmerman was trying to give the address and directions.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 02:27:45 PM
I read it differently than you.  He was trying to deceive the operator into thinking there were no addresses near where his car was parked.

That's a major leap of an assumption with really nothing to support it.

Quote
  As far as the operator knew, Zimmerman had gone back to his truck when he said "Okay" a minute previously.


There's no reason to assume the operator thought that, or that George intended to imply that.

George most likely would have been right about the T intersection when the dispatcher asked the address question, and at that point there was no visible address to give.  Listening to that call, I see nothing to indicate George was doing anything beyond trying to get Police to him as quickly as possible.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 02:31:08 PM
Quote
After Zimmerman said 'OK', he claims to have gone to Retreat View Circle, in search of an address which Sean had not yet asked for.

Everything Zimmerman claims to have done for the sake of that address, was actually done before the address was asked for.

I think the most likely scenario is that George paused at the T intersection after saying "Okay", and didn't head to RVC until after the address was asked for.  (And that George's claim to the contrary under interrogation fit into George's pattern of getting events out of order, such as pointing to the backs of the houses in the video walkthrough too soon instead of waiting until they reached the T).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 02:34:22 PM
Is that something Zimmerman is supposed to have said when the dispatcher was talking over him? I know he said something after 'They'll see my truck', while the dispatcher was asking for the address. I've never been able to make it out. I think he was giving the make, model, and color, as he mentioned a few times in the SPD interviews.

I think having the cops look for the car with the lights on was something Zimmerman would have said had he not been distracted by Martin starting to run.
Quote
1:45:65 - When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you'd – would
go past the clubhouse— [he's trying to explain his location on Twin Trees, southeast of the clubhouse,
not at the clubhouse itself].
1:54:26 - Okay, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?
1:57:62 - No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight
in, don't turn and make a left – [2:06:89] sh*t, he's running. [in real time this is at 7:11:41 PM].
2:08:82 - He's running? Which way is he running? [truck door opens, door open chime/alarm]
2:10:24 - Uh [grunts while exiting truck] down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood [door
closes]

It is absolutely obvious from this that he exits to look for Martin in the cut through, not an address. And by the way, the directions Zimmerman gave are not bad, despite claims made in this forum.  Just look at the NY Times map#5 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html?ref=trayvonmartin) I mentioned previously.  If the cops followed them, they would have had no trouble finding Zimmerman's car and maybe that is exactly what they did.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 02:49:13 PM
George most likely would have been right about the T intersection when the dispatcher asked the address question, and at that point there was no visible address to give.  Listening to that call, I see nothing to indicate George was doing anything beyond trying to get Police to him as quickly as possible.
I see you are still not attempting an explanation of how going to RVC for an address would help the cops find him as quickly as possible and why he went forwards rather than back to the car after the "Okay".  I would hope O'Mara and West have a more realistic view of their potential problems than you do.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 02:55:38 PM
Just look at the NY Times map#5 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html?ref=trayvonmartin) I mentioned previously. 

I've looked at it. What about it?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 02:57:24 PM
It clearly shows that the cops following what Zimmerman told the dispatcher would find his truck.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 02:59:05 PM
  I would hope O'Mara and West have a more realistic view of their potential problems than you do.

Word.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 03:02:16 PM
I see you are still not attempting an explanation of how going to RVC for an address would help the cops find him as quickly as possible

That's not what I said.  I was referring to listening to the NEN call and addressing your claim that he was attempting to deceive the operator.  Nothing on that NEN call suggests any reason to support that claim.

The decision to go to RVC wasn't on that call, but it was accompanied with a request to have the police call him...in an attempt to get the police to him as quickly as possible.

Quote
I would hope O'Mara and West have a more realistic view of their potential problems than you do.

You really have no clue of what my view is of their potential problems.  Just because addressing them was not in the scope of my response does not mean I'm unaware of them.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 03:18:59 PM
It clearly shows that the cops following what Zimmerman told the dispatcher would find his truck.

You're entitled to your opinion. I think it's a toss-up whether a person trying to follow those directions would get there or not. I think it was wise of Sean Noffke to distrust them.

What I was wondering is what is special about the Times map, that I'm supposed to get a different impression than I have gotten from all the other maps I have looked at.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 03:23:31 PM
That's not what I said.  I was referring to listening to the NEN call and addressing your claim that he was attempting to deceive the operator.  Nothing on that NEN call suggests any reason to support that claim.

The decision to go to RVC wasn't on that call, but it was accompanied with a request to have the police call him...in an attempt to get the police to him as quickly as possible.

You don't deduce he was lying just from the NEN call.  You do if you include his later statements. He never gave the operator an inkling that he was going to RVC and why.  Now tell me again how getting out of the car and going to RVC would help get the cops to him more quickly than just staying inside?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 03:31:30 PM
What I was wondering is what is special about the Times map, that I'm supposed to get a different impression than I have gotten from all the other maps I have looked at.

I haven't seen any others that more clearly explain what was going on to me.  You learn where the 711 store was in relation to the the complex, where Martin probably entered the Retreat, what Zimmerman's route both on car and on foot was, where Brandy's house and the back entrance were, etc..  If you have suggestions for better ones, please post links to them.  Thanks.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 03:34:07 PM
You don't deduce he was lying just from the NEN call.  You do if you include his later statements.

I disagree.  There is nothing to support that assumption.

Quote
He never gave the operator an inkling that he was going to RVC and why.

So?  It may not have occurred to him to.  We don't know exactly how long he stood at the T after being advised to not follow, or at what point he decided to head over to RVC.  I believe I know what the Defense is going to argue, about when and why he made the decision, but I'd be just guessing.

 
Quote
Now tell me again how getting out of the car and going to RVC would help get the cops to him more quickly than just staying inside?

Once again, I never claimed going to RVC would help the cops get to him more quickly.  One spot would not have been easier or harder for Police to find than the other after all.

I believe that when asked for an address in a spot George was unable to give one,  George rationalized to himself that he might as well go for a location that was closer to where he thought Trayvon might be.

Requesting the Police contact him upon reaching the area, however, does serve the purpose of getting the Police to him as quickly as possible.  This is just basic common sense.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 03:49:54 PM
If you have suggestions for better ones, please post links to them. 

I don't know about better. I use Google Earth (http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html) and Bing. (http://www.bing.com/maps/)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on December 29, 2012, 04:11:26 PM
Quote
Zimmerman: I got out of my vehicle to look at this house’s address, and see if there was a sign there.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: There wasn’t.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: So I walked through the dog walk to see if there was a sign here
Singleton: OK
Zimmerman: or an address that I could make out easier.

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=996

Did GZ say this before or after the voice stress analysis? I don't remember. If before, and he was lying, I doubt he would have agreed to the VSA unless he knew he wouldn't be asked about looking for an address.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 04:11:41 PM
The directions that he, while still in the truck, gave the dispatcher would have gotten the police to him.   
 

They would not, because the dispatcher didn't pass them on. The call logs and radio traffic are in the discovery. I don't think there is any record of those directions going beyond Noffke.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 04:20:39 PM
I don't know about better. I use Google Earth (http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html) and Bing. (http://www.bing.com/maps/)

This is apples versus oranges.  For a quick orientation for an amateur like me, the Times article has the best maps.  There are no scales there so for more more detailed questions I am happy that a Google/Bing Maps mavin is here to help out.  8)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 04:38:04 PM
Quote
Zimmerman: I got out of my vehicle to look at this house’s address, and see if there was a sign there.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: There wasn’t.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: So I walked through the dog walk to see if there was a sign here
Singleton: OK
Zimmerman: or an address that I could make out easier.

Did GZ say this before or after the voice stress analysis?

Before.

The quote is from the second part of the Singleton interview on 2/26. The CVSA was the next day.

Singleton interviewed Zimmerman alone on 2/26, while Serino was at the scene. The second part of that interview was when Zimmerman drew on a map.

The written statement was done at some time on 2/26. I think it must have been after the first part of the Singleton interview, because Singleton Mirandized Zimmerman at the beginning of the interview. I don't know if the written statement was done before or after the second part of the interview, but comparing the statements I would guess before.

After midnight Serino interviewed Zimmerman briefly. They hit the high points of his story, and discussed the reenactment.

The reenactment was done on the afternoon of 2/27, and the CVSA later that evening.

The last interview was 2/29, in three parts. Serino and Singleton double-teamed Zimmerman, and in the third part confronted him with recordings of his police call and W-11's 911 call.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 04:47:30 PM
https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=996

Did GZ say this before or after the voice stress analysis? I don't remember. If before, and he was lying, I doubt he would have agreed to the VSA unless he knew he wouldn't be asked about looking for an address.
The VSA was a day later and he wasn't asked about looking for an address.  I don't find his agreement to take it a convincing argument he actually looked for one when he got out of the vehicle.  The business about looking for one at the dog walk was certainly a lie.  Zimmerman walked his own dog there and knew it only had the back of houses. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 04:56:30 PM
The business about looking for one at the dog walk was certainly a lie.

There really is no reason to claim such, much less as a "certainty".  Especially in light of the video walkthrough the following day where George demonstrated his problems with getting ahead of him self where he had to go back and correct himself.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 05:04:22 PM
For a quick orientation for an amateur like me, the Times article has the best maps. 

Yes, I guess they are about as good as any I've seen in the media. They get the location of the body right, which was a big problem in the early days.

If you haven't downloaded Google Earth, I recommend it. You can search for a specific address, chain stores, businesses or other such things of a particular kind. There's a ruler for estimating distances, and street view photos. All those are very handy.

It's not hard to learn to use. The ruler is on the Tools menu. For Search, click Sidebar on the View menu.

For street views, mouse over the icon outlines in the upper right. One of them will become a little orange man. Click and hold, and blue lines appear on the streets. Drag the figure to one of the lines to get a street view. When you've got it, you can use the icons to rotate the camera view.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 05:12:31 PM
Did GZ say this before or after the voice stress analysis? I don't remember. If before, and he was lying, I doubt he would have agreed to the VSA unless he knew he wouldn't be asked about looking for an address.

I think Zimmerman was confident that he could pass any 'lie detector', for reasons I don't think I can discuss with crossing the 'character' line.

I wonder if any of Zimmerman's classes included familiarization with anti-deception technologies.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 05:14:18 PM
When I asked this question earlier today, nobody answered so I will try again: What would be the consequences to the defense case if Zimmerman admitted that his story of getting out of the car and going to RVC to get an address for the dispatcher was a lie invented to overcome his feeling of guilt over not taking the dispatcher's implied advice that he get back to the car?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 05:28:49 PM
When I asked this question earlier today, nobody answered so I will try again: What would be the consequences to the defense case if Zimmerman admitted that his story of getting out of the car and going to RVC to get an address for the dispatcher was a lie invented to overcome his feeling of guilt over not taking the dispatcher's implied advice that he get back to the car?

I don't know if anyone would be able to make a guess at how much that would hurt.

And it's such an extremely unlikely scenario that I don't think guessing would serve any purpose.  The Defense has no reason to make such a claim.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 05:34:20 PM
They would not, because the dispatcher didn't pass them on. The call logs and radio traffic are in the discovery. I don't think there is any record of those directions going beyond Noffke.

So did the cops find the scene from the 911 calls?  Was Noffke lying in the following?
Quote
1:27:41- Okay. Just let me know if he does anything, okay? [crosstalk: Please just get an officer over
here].
1:29:89 - Yeah, we've got him on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
...
2:52:63 - Okay, George, we do have em on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Times above are relative to 7:09:34 so would be well before the 911 calls came in.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 05:52:17 PM
I don't know if anyone would be able to make a guess at how much that would hurt.

And it's such an extremely unlikely scenario that I don't think guessing would serve any purpose.  The Defense has no reason to make such a claim.

The scenario making such an admission from Zimmerman desirable would be Zimmerman on the stand with a relentless prosecutor pointing out what has been said here previously about the difficulties in accepting the address story.  I'll admit that my estimation of the chances things will get to that stage are less than 50-50 but quite a bit greater than "extremely unlikely".
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 06:00:22 PM
So did the cops find the scene from the 911 calls? 

Yes.

Prior to the 911 calls, their reports and the radio traffic show that they were responding to the clubhouse address.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 06:13:55 PM
The scenario making such an admission from Zimmerman desirable would be Zimmerman on the stand with a relentless prosecutor pointing out what has been said here previously about the difficulties in accepting the address story.  I'll admit that my estimation of the chances things will get to that stage are less than 50-50 but quite a bit greater than "extremely unlikely".

Under examination by a relentless prosecutor, there is still no reason to make such a claim, so I still call it extremely unlikely. 

After all, under said examination, George can still point out that multiple times during interrogation, he acknowledged following Trayvon.  It really isn't that hard to reconcile George's statements without a requirement to invent an admission of lying.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
What would be the consequences to the defense case if Zimmerman admitted that his story of getting out of the car and going to RVC to get an address for the dispatcher was a lie invented to overcome his feeling of guilt over not taking the dispatcher's implied advice that he get back to the car?

I think somewhat negative. It might have helped earlier, but the damage to Zimmerman's credibility is done. Trying to claim honesty points now would look desperate and manipulative.

Procedurally, is there a way for Zimmerman to make such an admission, other than getting on a witness stand and exposing himself to cross-examination?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 06:23:23 PM
If anything, the Defense is more likely to argue that George was afraid "following" would be taken as "pursuing", and George was afraid they'd assume he was trying to catch the kid, so thus downplayed the following.

That would have a minimal negative impact, and has the advantage of being most likely the truth.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 29, 2012, 06:55:30 PM
Under examination by a relentless prosecutor, there is still no reason to make such a claim, so I still call it extremely unlikely. 
Unlike what you have been doing here, Zimmerman won't be able to refuse to answer the prosecutor's question of why did he take the dangerous route of getting out of the car and go to Retreat View Circle for an address the dispatcher didn't ask him for and finally decide not to give it, etc..  I think I could ask him three hours of questions on that point without repeating one.  Judging from the way he changed the story from one interview to the next, I wonder how many times O'Mara would have to prep him in order to get a coherent, believable version out.  It would be a lot simpler to admit he lied and be done with it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 07:31:12 PM
Unlike what you have been doing here, Zimmerman won't be able to refuse to answer the prosecutor's question of why did he take the dangerous route of getting out of the car and go to Retreat View Circle for an address the dispatcher didn't ask him for and finally decide not to give it, etc..

Considering George admitted multiple times under questioning that he followed Trayvon, that's just not as big an issue as you seem to think.  George described getting out of the car for an address in the first interview, then during the reenactment did the same, but at the scene corrected himself to point out where he was asked if he was following and said "Yes".

So under oath, he won't have to explain what you're claiming he will; he could say he got out to follow, was advised not to, then was asked for an address and decided to go to RVC for one.  That would be completely explainable with what he told investigators during interrogation.

Quote
It would be a lot simpler to admit he lied and be done with it.

There is no reason to do so, especially seeing as inventing such an admission would probably be a lie.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 08:15:18 PM
Was Noffke lying in the following?
 
Quote
1:27:41- Okay. Just let me know if he does anything, okay? [crosstalk: Please just get an officer over
here].
1:29:89 - Yeah, we've got him on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
...
2:52:63 - Okay, George, we do have em on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

I wouldn't say 'lying'. He may have intended a loose interpretation of 'on the way'.

The event report for the incident in on p. 46 of Zimmerman's call logs. (http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/911CallHistory.pdf)

At the bottom of the third box, you can see that Officer Timothy Smith was assigned radio ID S2711, and Officer Ricardo Ayala was assigned radio ID S1312.

In the History section, we see S1312 (Ayala) ENR at 7:12:13, and S2711 (Smith) ENR at 7:13:27.

At 7:11:59, Noffke recorded that Zimmerman had reported the suspect running.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 08:32:44 PM
If somehow he is forced to have Zimmerman testify,

Then the Fifth Amendment is violated, and they can appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 08:41:56 PM
It simply isn't credible that Zimmerman was lying when he said he didn't know the address because it was a cut-through.

Why not?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 08:48:57 PM
George most likely would have been right about the T intersection when the dispatcher asked the address question, and at that point there was no visible address to give.

That's not the explanation Zimmerman gave the dispatcher.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 09:07:18 PM
We don't know exactly how long he stood at the T after being advised to not follow

Why would he stand there at all? What evidence is there that he did?

In the third part of the 2/29 interview, Zimmerman explicitly denied that he even stopped at the T.

2/29-3, 13:13-19
Quote
Serino: Did you stop at the T?

Zimmerman: No. I walked through. I stopped on Retreat View Circle.

Serino: That's where you were standing?

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 29, 2012, 09:08:46 PM
Why not?

Why would he lie about that? What was the motive? He seemed by all indications to want the police to show up. Did he foresee that he'd end up shooting Martin and saying he was looking for an address, so he didn't want to admit he already knew it?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 09:23:20 PM
Why would he lie about that?

He didn't want to admit that he didn't know the name of Twin Trees Lane.

He didn't want to admit that he wasn't near the truck.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 29, 2012, 10:03:28 PM
He didn't want to admit that he didn't know the name of Twin Trees Lane.

He didn't want to admit that he wasn't near the truck.

The first reason seems to be saying he didn't know the address, which is what he said. If you're going to fault him for the possibly falsely saying that he didn't know the address because it was a cut-through, be my guest. I wouldn't by any stretch call that a lie.

The second reason makes no sense to me. He'd just given directions leading to his truck, so he wasn't trying to prevent the police for locating it, and giving the address where he parked doesn't reveal how far from the truck he's traveled.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 10:22:18 PM
That's not the explanation Zimmerman gave the dispatcher.

It wasn't needed.  He said it's a cut through, he didn't know the address.
The T intersection is in a cut through, with no address visible.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 10:22:58 PM
giving the address where he parked doesn't reveal how far from the truck he's traveled.

It isn't giving the address vs. not giving it. It's admitting the true reason why he didn't know the address.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 10:23:50 PM
The T intersection is in a cut through

Zimmerman isn't a truck.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 10:24:57 PM
Zimmerman isn't a truck.

He wasn't at the truck.  He was in a cut through with no visible addresses.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 29, 2012, 10:32:51 PM
It isn't giving the address vs. not giving it. It's admitting the true reason why he didn't know the address.

Which was?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 10:39:04 PM
Which was?

There are two possible reasons, both of them based on Zimmerman's own statements.

One is that he didn't know the name of Twin Trees Lane.

The other, is that he couldn't see a house number near the truck because he wasn't near the truck. He was on Retreat View Circle, tapping on his flashlight.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 10:44:00 PM
Zimmerman isn't a truck.

He was in a cut through with no visible addresses.

I'll try this another way.

Zimmerman being in a cut through, is not the same thing as Zimmerman's truck being parked at a cut through.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 11:10:36 PM
He was in a cut through with no visible addresses.

I'll try this another way.

Zimmerman being in a cut through, is not the same thing as Zimmerman's truck being parked at a cut through.

And when he was asked about an address, he was neither at his truck to see the address by the cut through, nor was there a visible address where he was.

And there is no reason to assume he could automatically recall the address where the truck was.  If my car was parked as far away from my house as his truck was from his, I wouldn't be able to give an address off the top of my head either without checking, and I've lived here nearly 8 years.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 11:18:07 PM
And when he was asked about an address, he was neither at his truck to see the address by the cut through, nor was there a visible address where he was.

Zimmerman did not tell the dispatcher either of those things.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 29, 2012, 11:27:55 PM
I think the most likely scenario is that George paused at the T intersection after saying "Okay", and didn't head to RVC until after the address was asked for. 

That's 50 seconds.

Zimmerman said that he stood on RVC tapping his flashlight because he didn't want to walk back in the dark. Why is it 'most likely' that he would stand around in the dark for 50 seconds?

If Zimmerman did that, he didn't just get events out of order. He didn't mention, and at one point seems to have explicitly denied, an event lasting 50 seconds.

The flashlight taps can be heard on the police call recording. As best I can tell, they start about the time Zimmerman gave the dispatcher his last name, about 14 seconds after 'OK', and last about 53 seconds, ending about the time Zimmerman interrupted himself giving his home address.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 29, 2012, 11:31:28 PM
There are two possible reasons, both of them based on Zimmerman's own statements.

One is that he didn't know the name of Twin Trees Lane.

The other, is that he couldn't see a house number near the truck because he wasn't near the truck. He was on Retreat View Circle, tapping on his flashlight.

I thought it was fairly clear it was the street that he didn't know. From the first interview, the first time Zimmerman explained why he got out of his car:
Quote
Zimmerman: Um, and, dispatch asked me where he went. I didn’t know the name of the street that I was on, I...
Singleton: So you’d come off your street and gotten to another street
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: at some point? OK.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am. Goes in, cuts through the middle of my neighborhood.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: I didn’t know the name of the street. Um, or where he went. So I got out of my car to look for the street sign, and to see if I could see where he cut through so that I could tell the police where…
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 29, 2012, 11:36:32 PM
Zimmerman did not tell the dispatcher either of those things.

Nor did he say he was at his truck. He made no comment either way. When asked if he was following Martin, he said, "Yeah," so he clearly wasn't claiming he didn't go away from his truck.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 29, 2012, 11:45:01 PM
That's 50 seconds.

Zimmerman said that he stood on RVC tapping his flashlight because he didn't want to walk back in the dark. Why is it 'most likely' that he would stand around in the dark for 50 seconds?

If Zimmerman did that, he didn't just get events out of order. He didn't mention, and at one point seems to have explicitly denied, an event lasting 50 seconds.

Yeah, but, see, we don't know how fast he was walking, if he might have looked around near the T to see if there was a visible address, if he slowed down near the T as he neared the edge of the darkness, how fast/slow he might have been walking looking south to see if he could spot Trayvon, if he might have paused to bang on the flashlight or even noticed that he did...the possibilities are numerous.

And while we have the advantage of listening to the call and timing everything out in retrospect, George would have no reason at the time to pay attention to what he was doing every second to try and memorize it.

I've seen people try and relate a funny part at the end of a movie they've just seen minutes before, and screw it up.  People's memories are funny things.

(Which also is the same reason I give Tracy Martin/Chad the benefit of the doubt when saying things like they last saw Trayvon a half an hour after he was dead, etc.)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 29, 2012, 11:47:20 PM
Zimmerman being in a cut through, is not the same thing as Zimmerman's truck being parked at a cut through.

I don't think it's completely clear what Zimmerman means by the "cut-through." From the portion of the Singleton interview just quoted:

Quote
Zimmerman: Um, and, dispatch asked me where he went. I didn’t know the name of the street that I was on, I...
Singleton: So you’d come off your street and gotten to another street
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: at some point? OK.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am. Goes in, cuts through the middle of my neighborhood.
Singleton: OK.

That sounds to me like he may refer to the street itself as a "cut-through."

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 30, 2012, 10:58:08 AM
Some here argue that we can't say that Zimmerman's claim of going to RVC to get an address was a lie because we don't really know what he did or intended to do with such an address.  He certainly knew that he wouldn't be able to store it in his head for later use.  He successfully (meaning his questioners at the time didn't call him on it) bluffed his way through some interviews by acting like it was a valid substitute for an address near where his car was parked, which he was asked for after he got himself close to or on RVC for reasons he has never owned up to.  Nothing on the NEN call or later interviews suggests he thought that it might be more prudent to have the cops pick him up on RVC rather than risk walking back to TTL on the cut through or why he might have abandoned that plan.   The RVC address hunt is just the least probable of several questionable comments Zimmerman made about his activities that evening.  If not volunteering everything he knew about his finances and passport could make a judge think him a liar that wasn't to be trusted, I don't see why the RVC address wouldn't have a similar effect.  Just how far can O'Mara go with the ADD/ADHD defense?  He didn't even attempt it with the paypal/passport problem.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 30, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Well it's pretty clear that the Defense is going to argue that George got out of the car to, in George's words "keep an eye on Trayvon to help police locate him".

Then it'd be no problem to argue that when he was asked for an address, none was visible so he decided to see if he could get one at RVC.

If the prosecution makes an issue of George not initially admitting to following Trayvon, the Defense can argue that George simply forgot in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and as soon as he remembered he pointed it out.  Fortunately, it's on video George doing just that.

The RVC thing is one of the easier issues to explain.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: SuzieTampa on December 30, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
Ricky, you shouldn't say GZ lied about X or Y because it is speculation -- it isn't proven. My understanding is that Jeralyn doesn't want us to present speculation as fact.

The people I know who have ADD/ADHD can easily forget things. In a very emotional situation that lasted only a matter of minutes, it's not surprising if someone can't remember exactly what happened when. Nor would it be surprising if he got confused and gave incorrect information.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 30, 2012, 11:46:38 AM
Suzie, if anybody can come up with a reasonable innocent explanation for Zimmerman saying he went to RVC for an address to give the dispatcher, then I will apologize.  Nobody has come close.  I don't think using Occam's razor to come up with my explanation for Zimmerman's behavior is outrageous speculation.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 30, 2012, 12:29:38 PM
Trouble is, we just disagree on what is a reasonable innocent explanation.  You're not likely to be convinced because you don't want to be IMO.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 01:47:33 PM
Well it's pretty clear that the Defense is going to argue that George got out of the car to, in George's words "keep an eye on Trayvon to help police locate him".

What do you think they will say Martin was doing? Walking? Running? Skipping? Or will they come up with a fourth gait, while Zimmerman continues stoutly denying that he ever changed his story?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 02:40:04 PM
That sounds to me like he may refer to the street itself as a "cut-through."

So the reason Zimmerman gave for not being able to give a street address where his truck was parked, may be that it was parked on a street?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 02:57:31 PM
That's 50 seconds.

Zimmerman said that he stood on RVC tapping his flashlight because he didn't want to walk back in the dark. Why is it 'most likely' that he would stand around in the dark for 50 seconds?

If Zimmerman did that, he didn't just get events out of order. He didn't mention, and at one point seems to have explicitly denied, an event lasting 50 seconds.

Yeah, but, see, we don't know . . .

What do we know?

Your quote from my post includes a question you haven't answered. What is your positive reason for thinking the scenario you suggest is 'most likely'?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 04:35:58 PM
So the reason Zimmerman gave for not being able to give a street address where his truck was parked, may be that it was parked on a street?

Parked on a street whose name he didn't know.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: spectator on December 30, 2012, 04:43:23 PM
Suzie, if anybody can come up with a reasonable innocent explanation for Zimmerman saying he went to RVC for an address to give the dispatcher, then I will apologize.  Nobody has come close.  I don't think using Occam's razor to come up with my explanation for Zimmerman's behavior is outrageous speculation.

First of all, GZ was not trying to hide Twin Trees Ln from Sean, if he could've come up with it, he would've said so, it's as simple as that.

Streets commonly change names when they make 90 degree turns, you also might not remember, or have other things going at the same time, like someone messing with you while circling your vehicle, as someones asks you questions.

Many people have to actually get off the phone to clear their head.

It's amazing how many people in our society that just can't grasp what happens in real life.

Some of the worst misunderstandings here is the human memory and adding up actions of an event.

Many actually believe you can just rewind the past for a quick look, or function like a robot in situations like the one George was in, including the interviews.

GZ never mentioned Twin Trees for an innocent reason, and numbers won't do you any good until you get to RVC, unless you spot something on the way, it doesn't have to always be a street sign (use your imagination), all this while still talking/listening and wondering about TM's location and your flashlight etc., among many others things going thru your head at the same time.

He has always said he was trying to see where TM was, and possibly get a better location as the events were constantly changing.

He's always been clear about what he was doing and is 100% consistent with someone who has done nothing wrong and is a victim of a brutal attack, but the feeble still try to make him look like a liar.

The Prosecution is, and will try to pull the wool over the peoples eyes, and some just can't see thru all this Monday morning QB nonsense.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 05:08:34 PM
What do you think they will say Martin was doing? Walking? Running? Skipping? Or will they come up with a fourth gait, while Zimmerman continues stoutly denying that he ever changed his story?

Other than "skipping," did Zimmerman ever specify a particular gait? I know in the final Serino/Singleton interview he said he didn't recall exactly what it was.  He was being grilled pretty accusatorially at the time, so he may have been (understandably, in my opinion) reluctant to say too much. It's also entirely possible, given that darkness and the fact that Zimmerman was distracted by talking on the phone, that Zimmerman couldn't really tell what Martin's exact gait was, but filled the details in during the considerable time between the shooting and the Hannity interview.  That's what memory does. W6 said in a later interview that Zimmerman said the gun was on the ground. He didn't say that in the earlier interview, and it wasn't true. Does that make W6 a liar?

"Running" encompass a large range of gaits, and also means rapidly fleeing. "Skipping" may have been an odd term to use, but I think I might know the gait Zimmerman was trying to describe: a sort of rapid stiff-legged pace between a run and a walk. I don't know a term for it, and maybe neither did Zimmerman.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on December 30, 2012, 05:45:32 PM
"Running" encompass a large range of gaits, and also means rapidly fleeing. "Skipping" may have been an odd term to use...
Okay, I don't recall exactly what he said to Hannity, but was GZ necessarily even attempting to convey a gait when he said TM was "skipping"?

Are we absolutely sure he wasn't attempting to convey something more like "he was skipping out"-- i.e. fleeing, clearing out of the area? I've heard a similar phrase (maybe cultural or regional, but also from Virginia), that someone "was booking" to convey that they were fleeing, getting away from an area.

If this has been hashed over before and it's obvious that he couldn't have meant this when he spoke to Hannity, my apologies in advance. I'm very interested in the case but don't make a solid study of it, as some of you clearly do, which is what drew me here in the first place.

(Also, I don't have cable, and miss things like the Hannity interview and have to depend on repostings and rehashes.)

...I think I might know the gait Zimmerman was trying to describe: a sort of rapid stiff-legged pace between a run and a walk. I don't know a term for it, and maybe neither did Zimmerman.
Trotting?

Also, wasn't there that whole thing in Dee Dee's testimony where she said she told TM to run, but he said he wasn't going to run, just walk fast, but then at her urging TM eventually did run?

Would that have resulted in some form of determined clearing out of the area that was more than a walk but less than a full-on run, i.e. "skipping"?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 06:11:27 PM
Okay, I don't recall exactly what he said to Hannity, but was GZ necessarily even attempting to convey a gait when he said TM was "skipping"?

Are we absolutely sure he wasn't attempting to convey something more like "he was skipping out"-- i.e. fleeing, clearing out of the area? I've heard a similar phrase (maybe cultural or regional, but also from Virginia), that someone "was booking" to convey that they were fleeing, getting away from an area.

When I suggested that possibility in the Hannity thread, nomatter_nevermind dismissed it as preposterous, but didn't explain why.

Here's what Zimmerman said:

Quote
HANNITY: -- trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time -- that maybe he was afraid of you, didn't know who you were?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think that he was running then?
ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more --
HANNITY: You said he's running.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear.
HANNITY: You could tell the difference?
ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.
HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

I see nothing preposterous in the hypothesis that Zimmerman was trying to find a synonym for "running" in the sense of "rapidly fleeing the scene," and the words that follow, "going away quickly," are consistent with that.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 06:16:04 PM
First of all, GZ was not trying to hide Twin Trees Ln from Sean, if he could've come up with it, he would've said so, it's as simple as that.

Has someone said that Zimmerman knew he was on Twin Trees Lane?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
Parked on a street whose name he didn't know.

Zimmerman didn't say that to the dispatcher.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 06:30:06 PM
Zimmerman didn't say that to the dispatcher.

If Zimmerman had said, "It's a side street, so I don't know the address," most everyone would assume he meant that because it's not a major thoroughfare, he didn't know the street name. Same thing. Why do you expect Zimmerman to give a detailed explanation for everything he says? What possible advantage would it have been for Sean to know the precise reason Zimmerman didn't know the address where he parked?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
I see nothing preposterous in the hypothesis that Zimmerman was trying to find a synonym for "running"

It's preposterous because Zimmerman said Martin wasn't running. In context, Zimmerman was offering 'skipping' as a description of what Martin was doing instead of running, not a 'synonym for "running"'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 06:45:04 PM
It's preposterous because Zimmerman said Martin wasn't running. In context, Zimmerman was offering 'skipping' as a description of what Martin was doing instead of running, not a 'synonym for "running"'.

Hannity was clearly using the term to mean the gait, not "fleeing," and Zimmerman understood that. So it isn't at all preposterous to suppose Zimmerman was trying to say Martin wasn't running in the sense of the particular gait, but was running in the sense of fleeing the scene.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 06:50:42 PM
It's preposterous because Zimmerman said Martin wasn't running. In context, Zimmerman was offering 'skipping' as a description of what Martin was doing instead of running, not a 'synonym for "running"'.

Suppose the interview had gone like this instead:
Quote
HANNITY: -- trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time -- that maybe he was afraid of you, didn't know who you were?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think that he was running then?
ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more --
HANNITY: You said he's running.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was, like, fleeing; going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear.
HANNITY: You could tell the difference?
ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.
HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

That seems to me to make perfect sense, and could only mean Zimmerman meant he was using "running" in the sense of fleeing, not to describe the gait.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 06:51:08 PM
What possible advantage would it have been for Sean to know the precise reason Zimmerman didn't know the address where he parked?

Sean was able to figure out that Zimmerman gave an incorrect address for the clubhouse, probably using a computer terminal. If Zimmerman had told him the truth about why he couldn't give an address, together they might have been able to figure out that problem too.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 06:56:44 PM
Sean was able to figure out that Zimmerman gave an incorrect address for the clubhouse, probably using a computer terminal. If Zimmerman had told him the truth about why he couldn't give an address, together they might have been able to figure out that problem too.

Told the truth? Told the truth!?! Not giving every detail you think he should have given isn't lying by any sane definition.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 07:11:25 PM
That seems to me to make perfect sense, and could only mean Zimmerman meant he was using "running" in the sense of fleeing, not to describe the gait.

I understand your logic now. I'll concede the point. It's not preposterous. It's just far-fetched.

In context, it seems to me that 'skipping' was most likely Zimmerman's choice of a word for a gait other than running. To use 'skipping' to mean 'fleeing' is an odd word choice to begin with, and even odder in a context where it would create such an obvious ambiguity.

With Zimmerman being so adamant that Martin was departing with a gait that could not be fairly described as 'running', I don't think it's too much to expect him to tell us what that gait was. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on December 30, 2012, 07:26:12 PM
Here's what Zimmerman said:

HANNITY: -- trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time -- that maybe he was afraid of you, didn't know who you were?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think that he was running then?
ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more --
HANNITY: You said he's running.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear.
HANNITY: You could tell the difference?
ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.
HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
[BBM]

I see nothing preposterous in the hypothesis that Zimmerman was trying to find a synonym for "running" in the sense of "rapidly fleeing the scene," and the words that follow, "going away quickly," are consistent with that.
Thanks for posting that stretch of the interview.

I do think GZ was trying to say that TM was leaving the area quickly, but since "running" is now linked by Hannity to the idea that TM was in fear of GZ, he has to defuse it by making it clear that TM wasn't "running in fear of him", but "running to avoid getting caught for whatever was behind TM's suspicious behavior".

Therefore, "skipping" as in "skipping out", getting away so as not to be caught doing something. ("Booking" frequently conveys the same sense of evasion of consequences in the usage I've heard, about 100 miles away from Manassas.)

Not "skipping" as in the actual gait associated with happy little children.

But again, Dee Dee originally said that she urged Trayvon to run and that he refused at first and agreed to walk fast. As Matt Gutman quoted her March 20:
Quote
"I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017

(Of course, they also say Dee Dee was 16 at this point.)

She changes this quite a bit when she does her second interview with BdlR:
Quote
Dee Dee: So he put his hoodie on. So I said, ‘What’s going on?’  He said this man is still watching him. Like in a car…so he about to run from the back. So then I told him, go to his dad house. Run to his Dad house.

BDLR: Go to what?

Dee Dee: Run to his dad house.

BDLR:  To his dad’s house?

Dee Dee: Yeah.

BDLR:  OK.

Dee Dee: So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said.  So, next thing I hear, he gettin’ run. And I can hear that the wind blowin’…

BDLR:  So you could tell he was running at that time…

Dee Dee:  Yeah.

So if the taped interview with Crump (that Matt Gutman  allegedly was present for) turns out to confirm that Dee Dee originally stated that TM initially refused to run when she urged him to run away from GZ, it:

1) makes it questionable that TM was in fear when he moved away from GZ's truck, since he refused to run away when she urged him to in her first telling;

2) supports GZ's "discrepancies" as mere uncertainty as to what the actual gait was, since she said initially that TM started walking fast but then she convinced him to run;

3) raises the possibility that Dee Dee's testimony was completely scripted by Crump all along, since two important parts ("walking fast" away from the truck and "get off, get off") got changed in the BdlR interview.


I guess that couldn't possibly be why there's been so much resistance to producing a clear copy of the Crump interview?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 08:05:46 PM
I understand your logic now. I'll concede the point. It's not preposterous. It's just far-fetched.

I do agree that it's more likely Zimmerman just chose an in-apt description for a quick gait that wasn't what would normally called running. As I've already mentioned, I have an idea of what I think he may have had in mind, but of course I have no way of knowing whether I'm right.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 08:16:23 PM

But again, Dee Dee originally said that she urged Trayvon to run and that he refused at first and agreed to walk fast. As Matt Gutman quoted her March 20

Gutman has a different order of events than Crump. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg101881.html#msg101881)

A part (http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/lawyer-presser-pt-2-in-trayvon-martin-case/vGcFM/) of the Crump interview in which Dee Dee mentioned the 'walk fast' line has been played for the media.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 08:20:01 PM
While I think "skipping" more likely meant a particular gait, not fleeing the scene, I think Zimmerman's use of "running" and "ran" in the NEN call quite likely meant "fleeing." "He ran" seems quite unlikely to refer to the gait. That's just not a usual way of expressing that idea.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 30, 2012, 08:21:12 PM
Suzie, if anybody can come up with a reasonable innocent explanation for Zimmerman saying he went to RVC for an address to give the dispatcher, then I will apologize.  Nobody has come close.  I don't think using Occam's razor to come up with my explanation for Zimmerman's behavior is outrageous speculation.
IMO Zimmerman wanted an address from the RVC side of the Xthru to direct arriving police to his location from the back gate, in two of his recent 911 calls GZ directed police to use the back gate for entry because it was closer to where he saw or expected the suspects to be... I have said often that is the most likely reason for the address hunt; when GZ and Sean agreed the police would call him it seems logical to have the address closest to the location of the Xthru.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 08:28:44 PM
in two of his recent 911 calls

Those calls were also non-emergency calls.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 30, 2012, 08:34:19 PM
Yes, I guess they are about as good as any I've seen in the media. They get the location of the body right, which was a big problem in the early days.
<snip>

I disagree the NYT does not get the actual location right, but rather they show the body farther south...
photo #14 and #20 (see below) show the body located directly in line with W-6 door and window, not south in line with the second privacy fence as the NYT map suggest's.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/gallery/news/news_photo_gallery/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-evidence-photos (http://www.abcactionnews.com/gallery/news/news_photo_gallery/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-evidence-photos)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 08:47:17 PM
I disagree the NYT does not get the actual location right, but rather they show the body farther south...
photo #14 and #20 (see below) show the body located directly in line with W-6 door and window, not south in line with the second privacy fence as the NYT map suggest's.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/gallery/news/news_photo_gallery/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-evidence-photos (http://www.abcactionnews.com/gallery/news/news_photo_gallery/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-evidence-photos)

Correct you are. The NYT shows the body next to the southward utility cover of the two closely-spaced covers. In fact, it was just north of the northward cover. They're off by slightly more than 10 feet.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 30, 2012, 09:41:55 PM
IMO Zimmerman wanted an address from the RVC side of the Xthru to direct arriving police to his location from the back gate, in two of his recent 911 calls GZ directed police to use the back gate for entry because it was closer to where he saw or expected the suspects to be... I have said often that is the most likely reason for the address hunt; when GZ and Sean agreed the police would call him it seems logical to have the address closest to the location of the Xthru.
I'm afraid I am unable to follow that at all.  It sounds like you are saying Zimmerman had a plan in mind to go back to the vicinity of his car and when the police called, tell them to go to a particular address on RVC rather than his car in order for them to find the cut through and then use their high powered lights to search the dogpath for the suspect?  If that is it?  What means did Zimmerman have to write the number down?  Why has he never mentioned getting and saving the address?  It would have been so easy for the police to find his truck on TTL.  You just go in the front entrance and keep going straight and the road bends to the left and Zimmeran's car would be seen right away as the only one with its headlights on. 

My pet theory about the origin of the address story, which fits the facts much better than any other explanation I have seen, is that Zimmerman went to RVC to see Martin heading for the back entrance on TTL.  He had a plan in mind, that if he did see that, he would tell the dispatcher to have the cops look for a tall skinny black kid in a hoodie on S. Oregon Ave.  He would also give Sean the address he was at on RVC so the cops could pick him up there so he could identify the caught suspect.  Since he didn't get a glimpse of Martin after a minute or so, he figured the hell with that, hung up with the dispatcher after telling him to just have the cops call him when they arrived and headed back into the cut through, perhaps banging his flashlight a few times to see if he could get it to work in order to be able to do a little peeking into the dogpath.  Perhaps he hoped he would see a dog walker and ask if anybody suspicious was seen. 

After the shooting, Z realized he made a bad mistake in not getting back to the car when the dispatcher suggested he should do that and didn't (and still doesn't) want to admit it.  Inspired by his plan on RVC as well as the dispatcher's request, late in the call, for an address near where his car was parked, he started to babble out unintelligible nonsense to Singleton and later in the walkthrough about needing to get an address, anywhere but TTL, but never explaining why such an address was needed, before he went back to his car to complete his intention ;D of complying with the dispatcher's suggestion.  He even claimed to look for one on the dogpath which he certainly knew didn't have any. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on December 30, 2012, 10:30:09 PM
You're entitled to your opinion. I think it's a toss-up whether a person trying to follow those directions would get there or not. I think it was wise of Sean Noffke to distrust them.

What I was wondering is what is special about the Times map, that I'm supposed to get a different impression than I have gotten from all the other maps I have looked at.

Did Dispatcher Sean distrust the directions, or was it just that the way Zimmerman kept backtracking and correcting himself he just couldn't make heads or tails of them?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on December 30, 2012, 10:35:46 PM
...
After the shooting, Z realized he made a bad mistake in not getting back to the car when the dispatcher suggested he should do that ...

When the dispatcher told Zimmerman that they didn't need Zimmerman to be following Martin, Zimmerman should have immediately returned to the truck out of which he never should have gotten in the first place, but the dispatcher only said they didn't need Zimmerman following Martin, and never said anything one way or the other about whether Zimmerman should go back to the truck or remain on foot or climb the nearest lamp pole.

The dispatcher never gave Zimmerman any "instructions" which Zimmeran then proceeded to "disobey".
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 30, 2012, 10:40:01 PM
Right and I didn't say he did.  Do you believe Zimmerman has no regrets?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 30, 2012, 10:41:31 PM
Did Dispatcher Sean distrust the directions, or was it just that the way Zimmerman kept backtracking and correcting himself he just couldn't make heads or tails of them?

I think it may have been department policy to get addresses, rather than send any but the simplest directions to officers over the radio. Even if Zimmerman had given better directions, Noffke might have ignored them and asked for an address.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 30, 2012, 10:53:28 PM
Right and I didn't say he did.  Do you believe Zimmerman has no regrets?

Judging someone's actions by whether they have regrets is foolish. If I drive to the store to pick up a gallon of milk, and on the way back a drunk driver crashes into me head on, I'll certainly regret deciding to go to the store on that day. That doesn't mean I did anything wrong or unwise. That's the trap Zimmerman faces whenever he's asked if he regrets what he did that night. If he says no, he sounds like he's happy with the outcome; if he says yes, he sounds like he's admitting error.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 12:09:41 AM

The dispatcher never gave Zimmerman any "instructions" which Zimmerman then proceeded to "disobey".

That's correct, but Zimmerman himself may have taken the dispatcher's words as a directive.

Written Statement, (http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/312/assets/40ZK_written_statement_0226.pdf) p. 2
Quote
The dispatcher asked me for a description and the direction the suspect went. I told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign & the direction the suspect [illegible]. The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was in route.

I think Zimmerman, like many other people, may have naively thought that disregarding the words of 'the police' might have some bearing on his legal case. That could be the main reason that he made up the story of the Great Address Hunt.

The prosecution will need to play down that possibility, as they argue for Zimmerman's consciousness of guilt.

I think Zimmerman was also uneasy about tracking Martin from the place where he called the police to the place where he left the truck.

In the first part of his interview with Singleton, Zimmerman omitted the event. He probably thought his first statement would be his last. He wasn't expecting to be asked to illustrate his movements on a map, or to do a reenactment. The secret could remain his own.

The written statement omits it also. That's the main reason I think the written statement was made before the second part of the Singleton interview.

Zimmerman seems to have been caught off guard by the request to draw on a map. He admitted to tracking Martin onto Twin Trees Lane, without making any excuse.

By the reeanactment, he was ready with a story that, like the Great Address Hunt, transferred agency and responsibility from himself to the dispatcher.

Reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 2:17-54
Quote
Smith: And this is where you got out?

Zimmerman: No. This is where I just stopped, to call, to call and, then he walked past me, and he kept looking at my car, and, still looking around at the houses and stuff. Then dispatcher said, "Where did he go, what direction did he go?" And I said "I don't know," I lost, because he cut down here and made a right, I guess that's Twin Trees Lane, he made a right in there. And they said, "Well, what direction did he go in?" And I said, "I don't know. I can't see him." And they said "Can you get to somewhere where you can see him?" And I said, "Yeah, I can." So I backed out.

I expect the prosecutors to trace this evolution in loving detail.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 31, 2012, 01:44:08 AM
Suzie, if anybody can come up with a reasonable innocent explanation for Zimmerman saying he went to RVC for an address to give the dispatcher, then I will apologize.  Nobody has come close.  I don't think using Occam's razor to come up with my explanation for Zimmerman's behavior is outrageous speculation.

I have said this to all on numerous occasions and the only thing that is changed it that now it approaching two years that I have had my house.

I simply cannot remember the name of the street one over from me.  I know it starts with "Candle" because all of the streets in the subdivision start with that.  I drive by it 2-3 times a week since the mailboxes are over there.  I make a note to myself to remember it periodically.  I say the name out loud a few times thinking every time I have finally committed it to memory.

Right now I would have to either drive over there to get the full name or Google a map with my home address to see what streets are around me.

For Zimmerman not to remember the name of a street in his area is not a big deal to me.  He knew and mentioned that he knew his street ran circular in the complex.  Walking straight through to get an address, absence of a street sign on TTL in the area where his truck was parked, is perfectly logical to me.

I am not ADD/ADHD either.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 31, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
I do agree that it's more likely Zimmerman just chose an in-apt description for a quick gait that wasn't what would normally called running. As I've already mentioned, I have an idea of what I think he may have had in mind, but of course I have no way of knowing whether I'm right.

Am I the only person who has ever seen people trying to run with those very low slung, below the arse pants?  They really can run properly because it takes one hand just to try and keep them up.  I have LOL'd at teens running to catch up with friends only to find their pants down to their knees.

As a gait, it really isn't unlike skipping. Or kind of hop-skipping.  Certainly faster than a walk but not fluid like jogging or running.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on December 31, 2012, 02:34:51 AM
Correct you are. The NYT shows the body next to the southward utility cover of the two closely-spaced covers. In fact, it was just north of the northward cover. They're off by slightly more than 10 feet.

According to the evidence map on the last page of the 284 page PDF, Martin's body was actually close to the center of the wide space between the northward cover and the cover north of it. That means the error in the NYT diagram was nearly 20 feet. Not accurate at all.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 06:42:57 AM
I think it may have been department policy to get addresses, rather than send any but the simplest directions to officers over the radio. Even if Zimmerman had given better directions, Noffke might have ignored them and asked for an address.
I doubt there was a department policy about asking for addresses.  Sean didn't ask for one until late in the call after saying police were on their way and realizing the guy on the other end wasn't playing with a full deck.  As I keep pointing out, it would be very easy for Zimmerman to get the police to his car with very simple directions.   
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 31, 2012, 06:43:12 AM

I expect the prosecutors to trace this evolution in loving detail.


I imagine they will, seeing as they don't really have anything else to make a case on.  That's something that the Defense really lucked out on though that they have such an easy way to explain that.

George omitted the dispatcher's "Are you following" in the reenactment as well, until after he got past the T, then pointed back and was like "Oh yeah!  That's where the dispatcher asked me if I was following and I said yeah" etc.

So really the Defense is likely to just argue that it's one of the details George struggled to remember after a traumatic event, until being back at the scene helped jog his memory, and that as soon as he remembered he told the police.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 31, 2012, 06:47:24 AM
It sounds like you are saying Zimmerman had a plan in mind to go back to the vicinity of his car and when the police called, tell them to go to a particular address on RVC rather than his car in order for them to find the cut through and then use their high powered lights to search the dogpath for the suspect? 

I don't think it sounds like that at all.  It's far more likely that when asked for an address, George wasn't able to give one, and recognized that being on a street would be where he'd need to go to get one.  He probably then opted for RVC with the intent to meet the Police there at the spot he guessed would be closer to where Trayvon was.   Once he arranged for Police to call, he didn't need to share the address with dispatcher anymore, because he could just direct the Police to him once they were in the area and called.

He probably stood there in the rain hoping Police would show up, before giving up and heading back to his truck.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 31, 2012, 06:49:56 AM
I have said this to all on numerous occasions and the only thing that is changed it that now it approaching two years that I have had my house.

I simply cannot remember the name of the street one over from me.  I know it starts with "Candle" because all of the streets in the subdivision start with that.  I drive by it 2-3 times a week since the mailboxes are over there.  I make a note to myself to remember it periodically.  I say the name out loud a few times thinking every time I have finally committed it to memory.

Right now I would have to either drive over there to get the full name or Google a map with my home address to see what streets are around me.

For Zimmerman not to remember the name of a street in his area is not a big deal to me.  He knew and mentioned that he knew his street ran circular in the complex.  Walking straight through to get an address, absence of a street sign on TTL in the area where his truck was parked, is perfectly logical to me.

I am not ADD/ADHD either.

Heh.

I am ADD or HD or whatever the current terminology is. Diagnosed by a competent medical practitioner and everything.

I can't remember the roads around my house. I know the names of them, more or less, but can almost never remember which one is which...except for Wolf Hill, which is just a cool name (after an original settling family, not the animal, but I still like to think of it as being a spot wolves would hang out) and Dickey Hill, because I'm still a child in many ways and Dickey Hill makes me chuckle.

But just the other day I was trying to give directions to someone and I had to resort to "that road that cuts off at an angle past that sudden dip and curve in the road". Guy said "you mean Cross Road?" And yes, that's the one. I drive over it 2-3 times a week. I should know it or remember it.

But you do not want want to play me in trivial pursuit. Oh no.

It's all how the brain works. Some people remember street names and have a detailed map in their heads at all times. My father is like that. Makes me crazy. Makes him crazy too, trying to tell me how to get anywhere.

Figuring that everyone's brain works the exact same as yours is a mistake. Humans are hugely variable.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 31, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Am I the only person who has ever seen people trying to run with those very low slung, below the arse pants?  They really can run properly because it takes one hand just to try and keep them up.  I have LOL'd at teens running to catch up with friends only to find their pants down to their knees.

As a gait, it really isn't unlike skipping. Or kind of hop-skipping.  Certainly faster than a walk but not fluid like jogging or running.

Someone...was it here? I don't think it was but maybe...anyway, someone posted a youtube video of an urban youth attempting to run whilst wearing pants of that type. Guy took about two normal steps then had to essentially resort to the hop-skip DFH mentions.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 31, 2012, 06:53:46 AM
I doubt there was a department policy about asking for addresses.  Sean didn't ask for one until late in the call after saying police were on their way and realizing the guy on the other end wasn't playing with a full deck.  As I keep pointing out, it would be very easy for Zimmerman to get the police to his car with very simple directions.

Kindly provide proof of your qualifications to make such a detailed diagnosis about someone you've never met.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 31, 2012, 07:11:22 AM
I would also add that GZ began the conversation reciting the address, Sean never asked because GZ opened the conversation with an address.

If we accept the principle of redundancy it is no surprise the address hunt remained a primary focus of the conversation to George. The four minute call began with the address, was marked in the middle with an address request and ended with another final address request; dismissing the requests with the promise of a call did not overcome it as a key component in GZ memory.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Lousy1 on December 31, 2012, 08:13:28 AM
Kindly provide proof of your qualifications to make such a detailed diagnosis about someone you've never met.

I've never meet Ricky Jim either but...
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 08:36:02 AM
I don't think it sounds like that at all.  It's far more likely that when asked for an address, George wasn't able to give one, and recognized that being on a street would be where he'd need to go to get one.  He probably then opted for RVC with the intent to meet the Police there at the spot he guessed would be closer to where Trayvon was.   Once he arranged for Police to call, he didn't need to share the address with dispatcher anymore, because he could just direct the Police to him once they were in the area and called.

He probably stood there in the rain hoping Police would show up, before giving up and heading back to his truck.

By his own account, the last place he saw Martin, while still on the phone, was entering the dogpath which is halfway between TTL and RVC.  I find the scenario of not giving the address to the dispatcher while still waiting there on RVC for the cops, absurd, even for Zimmerman.

By the way, don't you think that the fact a case was brought with such weak evidence has something to do with people in the police department feeling they were lied to by Zimmerman and their desire to teach him a lesson?  Didn't Judge Lester act similarly?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 31, 2012, 08:38:35 AM
By his own account, the last place he saw Martin, while still on the phone, was entering the dogpath which is halfway between TTL and RVC.  I find the scenario of not giving the address to the dispatcher while still waiting there on RVC for the cops, absurd, even for Zimmerman.

And I've not seen a convincing argument for why it's absurd, when Zimmerman had sufficient arrangements in place to meet the police on arrival.

Quote
By the way, don't you think that the fact a case was brought with such weak evidence has something to do with people in the police department feeling they were lied to by Zimmerman and their desire to teach him a lesson? 

No.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 31, 2012, 08:52:10 AM
I've never meet Ricky Jim either but...

I see what you did there.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 31, 2012, 08:59:41 AM
By his own account, the last place he saw Martin, while still on the phone, was entering the dogpath which is halfway between TTL and RVC.  I find the scenario of not giving the address to the dispatcher while still waiting there on RVC for the cops, absurd, even for Zimmerman.

By the way, don't you think that the fact a case was brought with such weak evidence has something to do with people in the police department feeling they were lied to by Zimmerman and their desire to teach him a lesson?  Didn't Judge Lester act similarly?

Bold: who's to say what's absurd? I know people who think posting on message boards is absurd. Do you have a wider point or are you just trying to outlast everyone and chase everyone off by posting crazier and crazier (appearing) stuff, knowing that here you can't be shouted down like the other sites you've been chased from?

Italics: No, I don't think the case was brought to "teach him a lesson." The case was brought by politicians trying to play politics and cover their political rumps. Those in power were afeared of Sharpton and his ilk ginning up race riots. They were afeared of the NBPP, and they were afeared of what might happen if the NBPP decided to actually do something for a change--there are a lot of people in Florida who've had about enough of that sort of tactic, and race riots could've spun into a small race war (so to speak). GZ was the sacrificial lamb. What they don't get (writing here of appeasers) is that you can never appease some people enough.

And as to your question about Judge Lester: perhaps he did decide to "teach [GZ] a lesson". How'd that work? Being removed from a case for showing bias hardly gets a judge a gold star in his record.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 09:04:37 AM
I would also add that GZ began the conversation reciting the address, Sean never asked because GZ opened the conversation with an address.

If we accept the principle of redundancy it is no surprise the address hunt remained a primary focus of the conversation to George. The four minute call began with the address, was marked in the middle with an address request and ended with another final address request; dismissing the requests with the promise of a call did not overcome it as a key component in GZ memory.
During the first minute of the 4 minute 5 second call, Zimmerman volunteered and the dispatcher read back questioningly, the clubhouse address.   In the last minute of the call, the dispatcher asked for Zimmerman's home address and the address where he parked the car.  I don't see anything about addresses in the middle.  My reading of the call is that Zimmerman was mostly focused on describing the suspect's behavior and commenting negatively on the same during the first half and during the second half, lamenting that he lost sight of him while never admitting he was still looking.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 09:20:21 AM
I've never meet Ricky Jim either but...
Except for NoMatter, Unitron and occasionally MJW and Deb, the other posters here seem to be more interested in acting as lawyers and apologists for Zimmerman rather than critically evaluating the evidence.  It is nowhere as bad as the CTH in that respect.

 And AnnoyedBeyond, I have never been chased off another board.   My first post to Leatherman was rejected (Anybody here ever got in?) and haven't tried since.  I didn't have to try very hard to get you to blurt out your real agenda, thanks.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 09:45:25 AM
For Zimmerman not to remember the name of a street in his area is not a big deal to me.  He knew and mentioned that he knew his street ran circular in the complex.  Walking straight through to get an address, absence of a street sign on TTL in the area where his truck was parked, is perfectly logical to me.
The discussion here has nothing to do with whether or not it is credible that Zimmerman couldn't remember the name of the street his car was parked on.  It has everything to do with Zimmerman trying to coverup his mistake of not going back to his car when the dispatcher suggested he do so.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 31, 2012, 09:50:22 AM
Except for NoMatter, Unitron and occasionally MJW and Deb, the other posters here seem to be more interested in acting as lawyers and apologists for Zimmerman rather than critically evaluating the evidence.

Coming to a different conclusion than you do does not mean we're evaluating the evidence any less than you are.

A few of us working together has put together a timeline of what we feel most likely transpired that so happens to reconcile each of Zimmerman's statements, as opposed to just settling for an assumption that something is "absurd" with nothing really to back up that assumption.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 31, 2012, 09:50:34 AM
During the first minute of the 4 minute 5 second call, Zimmerman volunteered and the dispatcher read back questioningly, the clubhouse address.   In the last minute of the call, the dispatcher asked for Zimmerman's home address and the address where he parked the car.  I don't see anything about addresses in the middle.  My reading of the call is that Zimmerman was mostly focused on describing the suspect's behavior and commenting negatively on the same during the first half and during the second half, lamenting that he lost sight of him while never admitting he was still looking.

@ 1:54 Sean is still concentrating on the address of the clubhouse as related to GZ location, @2:57 he begins another current line of inquiry regards location and address' @ 3:18 "Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?" and then finally the request for GZ home address... I should have said the middle of the call was marked by address discussion.
I simply do not see how anyone can read the transcript and not come away thinking that the operator Sean wanted address's from GZ.
Finally regards subsequent remarks, GZ was under no obligation to return to his vehicle.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 31, 2012, 10:08:20 AM
Except for NoMatter, Unitron and occasionally MJW and Deb, the other posters here seem to be more interested in acting as lawyers and apologists for Zimmerman rather than critically evaluating the evidence.  It is nowhere as bad as the CTH in that respect.

 And AnnoyedBeyond, I have never been chased off another board.   My first post to Leatherman was rejected (Anybody here ever got in?) and haven't tried since.  I didn't have to try very hard to get you to blurt out your real agenda, thanks.

I've already mentioned how you were chased off of wagist, it's not like it's a state secret.

I have no idea what my agenda is supposed to be other than I think the way you (ahem) read the evidence and come up with these theories borders on the ridiculous. I don't think I've made any particular secret of that feeling. If I have--I apologize. I never meant to have a hidden agenda about the ridiculousness of some of your theories and posts.


What is Leatherman (the only Leatherman I know is the multi-tool, and I don't carry one, I carry a Gerber Diesel).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on December 31, 2012, 10:10:58 AM
The discussion here has nothing to do with whether or not it is credible that Zimmerman couldn't remember the name of the street his car was parked on.  It has everything to do with Zimmerman trying to coverup his mistake of not going back to his car when the dispatcher suggested he do so.

How did you add 1 and 1 and get 7?

The dispatcher didn't suggest he go back to his car. The NEN operator said we don't need you to follow him--after he'd already said words to the effect of 'let us know if he does anything else'.

As someone has already mentioned to you--stop looking for zebras. I bet you'll find you're standing on a riding trail, not the African plains.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 10:24:32 AM
@ 1:54 Sean is still concentrating on the address of the clubhouse as related to GZ location, @2:57 he begins another current line of inquiry regards location and address' @ 3:18 "Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?" and then finally the request for GZ home address... I should have said the middle of the call was marked by address discussion.
I simply do not see how anyone can read the transcript and not come away thinking that the operator Sean wanted address's from GZ.
Finally regards subsequent remarks, GZ was under no obligation to return to his vehicle.
The dispatcher was interested in the police finding Zimmerman, not an exact address.  He did not ask for an address at all at the 1:54 and 2:57 points.  Zimmerman's directions of going straight ahead, past the front entrance were perfectly good and adequate.  However, the caller being so freaked out about the suspect made the dispatcher believe the he might not be capable to giving even simple directions and so he finally asked him for the address where the car was parked, 47 seconds before the call ended.  I just can't see how anyone can read the transcripts of Zimmerman's other interviews and come away thinking that he wasn't inventing an address hunt to avoid saying why he didn't go back to the car when the dispatcher suggested it.   :)  Nobody here has said he legally had to, but as NMNM has pointed out, Zimmerman might well have thought he was under such an obligation.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 10:33:14 AM
I've already mentioned how you were chased off of wagist, it's not like it's a state secret.


I have no idea what my agenda is supposed to be other than I think the way you (ahem) read the evidence and come up with these theories borders on the ridiculous. I don't think I've made any particular secret of that feeling. If I have--I apologize. I never meant to have a hidden agenda about the ridiculousness of some of your theories and posts.


What is Leatherman (the only Leatherman I know is the multi-tool, and I don't carry one, I carry a Gerber Diesel).
I was not chased off Waglist.  The website seemed to have folded and I stopped logging on to it.  Here is your agenda:
Quote
Italics: No, I don't think the case was brought to "teach him a lesson." The case was brought by politicians trying to play politics and cover their political rumps. Those in power were afeared of Sharpton and his ilk ginning up race riots. They were afeared of the NBPP, and they were afeared of what might happen if the NBPP decided to actually do something for a change--there are a lot of people in Florida who've had about enough of that sort of tactic, and race riots could've spun into a small race war (so to speak). GZ was the sacrificial lamb. What they don't get (writing here of appeasers) is that you can never appease some people enough.
Here is the link to Leatherman's blog (http://frederickleatherman.com/) .  Try to reply to a post there report back.   :D
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 31, 2012, 11:22:16 AM
The dispatcher was interested in the police finding Zimmerman, not an exact address.  He did not ask for an address at all at the 1:54 and 2:57 points.  <snip>

in context of the ongoing conversation he absolutely did... "2:57:16 - All right, where are you going to meet with them at?" that is specific ...especially when followed by "Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?" his very next sentence.

So let me get this sorted out you are claiming on one hand that the above does not indicate a request for an address? yet "Okay, we don't need you to do that." was an outright command to cease and desist and return immediately to your vehicle.

The point of each of my comments has been IMO the recurring theme of the conversation is location, specific identifiable location ie address'... while you read and see a sinister hunt, conversely I see an innocent search for the address to satisfy a specific request. I Believe it is the action's after the NEN call that defined the need for self defense on that night, not the twentysome seconds of following and not any perceived dalliance at or near RVC.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on December 31, 2012, 11:33:50 AM
Quote
The dispatcher was interested in the police finding Zimmerman, not an exact address.
I work as a security officer for a university police department in an urban environment, and 40 hrs. a week I have to listen to a police radio on my hip dispatching campus police officers. Additionally, I frequently have to give information to dispatchers in connection with requesting backup from police.

I can't say for certain what the policy of the NEN dispatch for SFD is, but my experience is that dispatchers definitely are interested in getting an exact address from every caller. (In fact, it often gets frustrating having to satisfy their demands on this.)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on December 31, 2012, 11:41:54 AM
Ricky,
If you listen to the address he gave (111 RVC) it was wrong and got corrected by Dispatch.  If you listen to his directions, first he has PD turning left after they enter The Retreat which would put them on RVC rather than going forward and following the bend in the road.  Then he seems to correct that to get them past the clubhouse before turning left.  But there isn't a true left turn on TTL.  The road just bends left.

His directions were craptastic.

He finally gave up and asked them to call so he could tell them where he was.

That is in evidence.  I have said all along that the NEN and the reenactment were the most important pieces of information TO ME.  Not so much the inconsistencies in his statements where PD was trying to trick him.

I think he was earnestly trying to comply with any and all requests from the NEN.  Not so much a direct order as you would state.  Dispatch told him "We don't need you to do that" and he said "OK" then a few seconds later the wind noises cease and Zimmerman still stays on the phone for another minute+ with no view/idea of where Martin is.

If Zimmerman were still in fear or if Dispatch felt there was a reason for concern neither would have disconnected.

If you want to believe Dee Dee, she told BDLR that Martin told her he lost Zimmerman.   She reinforces that 6 times.  That says TO ME that Zimmerman was in his truck the last time he saw him prior to the altercation.

Until someone can explain to me how Martin after 3+minutes of being off the grid can find himself at virtually the same point where he disappeared from view, Zimmerman will have a solid self-defense case. It signifies INTENT on Martin's behalf.  He either had to double back, lay in wait, or some combination of the  two.

Anyway, like you, it is just how I read it.  Opinions and all.

And for all of the exchanges about other sites, I think it is highly inappropriate.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on December 31, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
The case was brought by politicians trying to play politics and cover their political rumps.
I've always wondered if the proximity of Sanford to Orlando and Disney/Epcot was an additional factor in the appointment of Corey to push this case through-- loss of state revenue if tourism was impacted by boycotts and protests, riots, etc.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on December 31, 2012, 11:53:31 AM
The dispatcher, upon ascertaining that Zimmerman was following Martin, told Zimmerman that they didn't need for him to be doing that, but did not specifically tell or instruct Zimmerman to return to his vehicle.

As for Professor Leatherman's blog, a few months ago there might have been a chance of an impartial discussion or analysis of the case over there, but not these days.

If for whatever reason you have an irresistable urge to go there, start with the archives from March and work your way forward.

Don't forget your hipwaders.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on December 31, 2012, 12:02:32 PM
If you want to believe Dee Dee, she told BDLR that Martin told her he lost Zimmerman.   She reinforces that 6 times.  That says TO ME that Zimmerman was in his truck the last time he saw him prior to the altercation.
Doesn't BdlR specifically ask her if TM told her he saw GZ leave the truck, and she says "No"-- or at least never says "Yes"?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 01:32:51 PM
I doubt there was a department policy about asking for addresses.  Sean didn't ask for one until late in the call

It was late in the call that they discussed where Zimmerman wanted to meet the police. Sean waited patiently through Zimmerman's directions. As soon as Zimmerman said 'They'll see my truck', Sean interrupted him to ask for the address where the truck was parked.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 01:46:51 PM
A few of us working together has put together a timeline of what we feel most likely transpired

Great.

Would you point me to where that timeline has been laid out, or, if it hasn't been, do so now?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 01:55:04 PM
@ 1:54 Sean is still concentrating on the address of the clubhouse

False.

Quote
OK. [Unintelligible] on the left hand side, from the clubhouse?

Not a word about the address.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 31, 2012, 02:01:02 PM
It was late in the call that they discussed where Zimmerman wanted to meet the police. Sean waited patiently through Zimmerman's directions. As soon as Zimmerman said 'They'll see my truck', Sean interrupted him to ask for the address where the truck was parked.
This is where we will differ time and again, I do not agree that Sean waited patiently; I think he pressed GZ over and over to provide an address, both at the 0:48.74- 0:55.82 mark, and the 2:57.16-3:21.60 mark there is a noticeable interruption and crosstalk which renders the conversation unintelligible, in both instances Sean presses GZ for an address.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on December 31, 2012, 02:09:30 PM
Great.

Would you point me to where that timeline has been laid out, or, if it hasn't been, do so now?

It's on about a dozen sheets of paper taped to a whiteboard at the office of a friend (who is a police detective here who shared a mutual curiousity).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 03:21:53 PM
Sean didn't ask for one until late in the call after saying police were on their way and realizing the guy on the other end wasn't playing with a full deck.

Kindly provide proof of your qualifications to make such a detailed diagnosis about someone you've never met.

Sounds like a lay opinion to me.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 03:35:53 PM
This is where we will differ time and again, I do not agree that Sean waited patiently; I think he pressed GZ over and over to provide an address, both at the 0:48.74- 0:55.82 mark, and the 2:57.16-3:21.60 mark there is a noticeable interruption and crosstalk which renders the conversation unintelligible, in both instances Sean presses GZ for an address.
AIF, I'd love to know your favorite explanations for:
1. Zimmerman not giving the address of the house, closest to his car (I think that was where W11 and W20 lived) which he could have found with a teeny walk?
2. What would the police do with an address on the dogwalk, something he also claimed to look for?
3. What would the police do with an address on Retreat View Circle?
4. Why with a minute to go on the call and situated on RVC, and later claiming he had been looking for addresses from the time he got out of his car, he was still telling the dispatcher to have the police meet him by his car instead of at a new found address on RVC?
Quote
2:57:16 - All right, where are you going to meet with them at?
2:59:35 - [one tap] Um, if they come in through the, uh, gate [four light taps] tell them to go straight past
the clubhouse [four loud taps] and, uh, [sign or post being jostled by breeze] straight past the clubhouse
and make a left. And then they go past the mailboxes, n' they'll see my truck.
3:18:39 - [crosstalk: unintelligible] Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?
3:21:60 – [mild tap] Um, I don't know. It's a cut-through so I don't know the address.
4. Why didn't he give the RVC address to the dispatcher? 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 03:38:11 PM
I've always wondered if the proximity of Sanford to Orlando and Disney/Epcot was an additional factor in the appointment of Corey to push this case through-- loss of state revenue if tourism was impacted by boycotts and protests, riots, etc.

Great point.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 03:40:27 PM
What would the police do with an address on the dogwalk, something he also claimed to look for?

You've mentioned this a couple of times, and I've been meaning to ask you about it. I don't know what it refers to. Could you quote exactly what Zimmerman said?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 04:06:39 PM
If you want to believe Dee Dee, she told BDLR that Martin told her he lost Zimmerman.   She reinforces that 6 times.  That says TO ME that Zimmerman was in his truck the last time he saw him prior to the altercation.

How would Martin seeing Zimmerman outside the truck make it impossible for Martin to lose Zimmerman?

Doesn't BdlR specifically ask her if TM told her he saw GZ leave the truck, and she says "No"-- or at least never says "Yes"?

That's the notorious 'You want that too?' segment, in which de la Rionda lost it and raved about watching a football game. I transcribed (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg102846.html#msg102846) it some time ago on the W-8 thread.

Dee Dee said Martin didn't tell her he saw Zimmerman get out of the car, but he did say he saw Zimmerman out of the car.

The first time I heard it, I thought she was just saying that of course Martin saw Zimmerman out of the car just before the confrontation. After reflection, I don't think it is clear what time she was referring to.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on December 31, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
AIF, I'd love to know your favorite explanations for:
1. Zimmerman not giving the address of the house, closest to his car (I think that was where W11 and W20 lived) which he could have found with a teeny walk?
2. What would the police do with an address on the dogwalk, something he also claimed to look for?
3. What would the police do with an address on Retreat View Circle?
4. Why with a minute to go on the call and situated on RVC, and later claiming he had been looking for addresses from the time he got out of his car, he was still telling the dispatcher to have the police meet him by his car instead of at a new found address on RVC?4. Why didn't he give the RVC address to the dispatcher?

1. once out of the vehicle GZ stated a residents vehicle blocked his view; I actually believe as any rational person might that he followed TM with interest when he ran between the buildings, he merely continued along the path of least resistance toward RVC when the operator made the suggestion he need not follow.
2. ??
3. identify the Xthru; there is no other way for non-residents to define the walkway than give the address closest to its location.
4. the inability to communicate effectively with Sean is self evident, I have previously offered a compelling reason (directing arriving officers)
I also believe as others have stated that he decided to wait there for police to arrive (albeit an indeterminate period of time), the possibility of regaining visual contact of the 'suspect' no doubt played heavily into that decision.

I believe the above to be reasonable and in keeping with the facts as known.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 04:12:10 PM
You've mentioned this a couple of times, and I've been meaning to ask you about it. I don't know what it refers to. Could you quote exactly what Zimmerman said?

I learned about it at: (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg104876.html#msg104876) which has a quote from the second Singleton interview:
Quote
Zimmerman: I got out of my vehicle to look at this house’s address, and see if there was a sign there.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: There wasn’t.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: So I walked through the dog walk to see if there was a sign here
Singleton: OK
Zimmerman: or an address that I could make out easier.
Well now I see that maybe I am misinterpreting "through the dog walk to see if there was a sign here".  I don't really know where the 'here' Zimmerman was pointing to was.  It could have been on RVC.  The first house he mentioned could have been the W11/W20 house which had an address but there was no street sign on the corner.  Bernie might jump up and down shouting that Zimmerman admitted going through the dog walk, chasing after Martin.  Even with the dog walk question scratched, the other questions I asked to AIF are still there and hard to answer, especially #4.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 04:15:03 PM
If you listen to his directions, first he has PD turning left after they enter The Retreat which would put them on RVC rather than going forward and following the bend in the road.  Then he seems to correct that to get them past the clubhouse before turning left.  But there isn't a true left turn on TTL.  The road just bends left.

To put a cherry on the sundae, Zimmerman said they would pass the mailboxes after turning left. Actually they would pass the mailboxes before they were fully past the clubhouse.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on December 31, 2012, 04:25:44 PM
So is the dog walk the long north-south sidewalk that runs behind the backs of both TTL houses and east leg RVC houses, or is that the shorter east-west sidewalk that crosses the "T" of which the longer sidewalk is the descender, and which allows one to walk from TTL to RVC?

And which one is the cut-through?

Or did he (Zimmerman) mean that TTL itself was the cut-through?

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 04:35:56 PM
So is the dog walk the long north-south sidewalk that runs behind the backs of both TTL houses and east leg RVC houses,

On most occasions that I have seen residents use the term 'dog walk', they were clearly referring to the N/S sidewalk. I think the shorter, E/W walk is usually called the 'cross walk'.

It could be that 'dog walk' is used to refer to the whole assemblage, of the N/S walk and its two cross walks. Or, Zimmerman just got confused and said 'dog walk' when he meant 'cross walk'.

Quote
And which one is the cut-through?

I think that refers to the cross walk and the ground on either side of it, between the buildings and extending to the streets.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 04:53:40 PM
AIF, if I understand what you are saying, the reason Zimmerman went to RVC was to get the address, on a street whose name he knew, of the house next to the cut through to TTL (2861 RVC?) so the police could go there and finally find him somewhere.  I don't believe that at all.  Garrulous Zimmerman never told the dispatcher that was his intent and still was giving directions to the car late in the call and neither gave the RVC address to anyone nor offered any proof he got it.  Yet he hatched such a plan as soon as he got out of the car?  He ended up telling the dispatcher to just have the police call him when they arrived.  That means he might not be close to the cut through by the time the police came.  He had no intent besides running around looking for Martin and the hell with the dispatcher's advice.  the only reasonable explanation, I know, for the address story is his refusal to take responsibility for the recklessness of his behavior.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 04:56:38 PM
Not so much the inconsistencies in his statements where PD was trying to trick him.

Can you point to a specific example, where a specific inconsistency by Zimmerman can be attributed to a specific trick by the investigators?

Serino and Singleton used some interrogation ploys on Zimmerman in the final interview, but I can't think of one that worked. When Serino said the incident might be on video, Zimmerman made a convincing display of welcoming the prospect. When Singleton misrepresented what Zimmerman said in earlier interviews, he replied that he didn't remember it that way.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 05:38:50 PM
I can't say for certain what the policy of the NEN dispatch for SFD is, but my experience is that dispatchers definitely are interested in getting an exact address from every caller.

Sean didn't use the exact phrase 'exact address', but Zimmerman did in the SPD interviews. Maybe he had heard it from dispatchers on his earlier calls.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 05:55:35 PM
By the way, don't you think that the fact a case was brought with such weak evidence has something to do with people in the police department feeling they were lied to by Zimmerman and their desire to teach him a lesson?

I don't.

1. It wasn't the SPD's decision to bring in Corey.

2. Corey didn't follow the SPD's formal recommendation to charge manslaughter. She went beyond it and charged second degree murder.

I agree with most of what has been said about the political motivations behind the case. I might say a little more, but my posts tend to get deleted when I get into those weeds.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 06:09:39 PM
Let me put it this way NM_NM, do you think that if there had been real support among the investigators for the view that indicting Zimmerman for anything would be a big miscarriage of justice, Corey would have had second thoughts?  I detect that Serino, Singleton, Smith, etc. ended up with contempt for the guy even though they intellectually saw there wasn't a real legal case.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 06:10:10 PM
I just can't see how anyone can read the transcripts of Zimmerman's other interviews and come away thinking that he wasn't inventing an address hunt to avoid saying why he didn't go back to the car when the dispatcher suggested it.   

The dispatcher didn't mention the car.

This was pointed out before and you acknowledged it, but you keep repeating the misinformation.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 06:19:25 PM
The dispatcher didn't mention the car.

This was pointed out before and you acknowledged it, but you keep repeating the misinformation.
I used the word "suggested" meaning that the implication of the dispatcher's remark was that Zimmerman stay at a spot where he would be relatively safe from the suspect and the police could find him to get information, for example inside his car.  Sorry if I abbreviated the obvious.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on December 31, 2012, 06:57:49 PM
Another possible example of a Zimmerman lie the prosecution might claim, is the circling incident.  At a minute into the NEN call, Zimmerman describe an earlier time where Martin approached his car, then at the clubhouse, with "his hand in (inside?) his waistband".  I have no doubt that this actually happened.  In his interviews, Zimmerman tells that while the car was at the cut through a minute later, Martin emerges from the darkness, circles the car and then returns to the cut through and begins to run.  On the NEN call he doesn't say anything until the running starts.  Was he so engrossed in giving directions to the dispatcher that he didn't want to interrupt to give an update on the suspect?  He later told Serino and Singleton that he felt such fear during the circling that he didn't want to identify himself as an NW to the suspect but right after the running starts he gets out of the car, going in the same direction.  He didn't want the punk's challenge to go unanswered or he made it all up to make Martin look more gangsterish? 

I don't think this has as much going for it as attacking the "Great Address Hunt"   :D  but I think the prosecution might try it along with "kept banging my head on the concrete" and some others  Any other ideas along these lines on what they will try?  See you all next year.   ;D
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 07:51:44 PM
Another possible example of a Zimmerman lie the prosecution might claim, is the circling incident.

I think the prosecution will say this is a lie because Dee Dee will contradict it. She hasn't explicitly denied it in what has been released so far, but she also hasn't been asked about it. 

Quote
At a minute into the NEN call, Zimmerman describe an earlier time where Martin approached his car, then at the clubhouse, with "his hand in (inside?) his waistband".

I don't agree that this was an earlier incident, or that it was at the clubhouse. If the circling happened at all, I think it corresponds to the 'hand in the waistband' incident on the police call recording, and it all happened on TTL.

I'm interested in why you disagree.

I discussed this in an earlier post. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2161.msg103338.html#msg103338)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on December 31, 2012, 08:13:04 PM
I think he was earnestly trying to comply with any and all requests from the NEN.

Zimmerman took the initiative in founding the Neighorhood Watch. I think he had his own agenda, and his own ideas about how to protect his neighborhood. 

Quote
If you want to believe Dee Dee, she told BDLR that Martin told her he lost Zimmerman.   She reinforces that 6 times.  That says TO ME that Zimmerman was in his truck the last time he saw him prior to the altercation.

It has often been suggested that Martin said that because he saw Zimmerman heading in a different direction, maybe on the cross walk on his way to RVC. That makes sense to me.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 01, 2013, 12:20:49 AM
It's on about a dozen sheets of paper taped to a whiteboard at the office of a friend (who is a police detective here who shared a mutual curiousity).

I would love to see everything on that wall.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 01, 2013, 02:34:01 AM
And I've not seen a convincing argument for why it's absurd, when Zimmerman had sufficient arrangements in place to meet the police on arrival.

If you don't agree that Zimmerman's story is absurd, why don't you accept it?

Your assertion that 'Zimmerman had sufficient arrangements in place to meet the police on arrival', depends on your assumption that Zimmerman didn't arrive on Retreat View Circle until later than he himself claimed in the SPD interviews.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 01, 2013, 02:56:54 AM
I simply do not see how anyone can read the transcript and not come away thinking that the operator Sean wanted address's from GZ.

At the time that Sean said 'We don't need you to do that', and Zimmerman responded 'OK', Zimmerman had already given the clubhouse address, and Sean had not asked for any other address.

It is beyond absurd to suggest that Zimmerman took the cross walk to the eastern leg of Retreat View Circle, because he thought he would find the correct address for the clubhouse there.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 01, 2013, 03:22:13 AM
in context of the ongoing conversation he absolutely did... "2:57:16 - All right, where are you going to meet with them at?" that is specific ...especially when followed by "Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?" his very next sentence.

The request for an address was the next sentence spoken by Sean. But why 'very next'? To me, that intensifier implies that it was spoken immediately after. It came about 20 seconds later, after three sentences of Zimmerman's directions.

As those directions show, an address is not the only way to answer a 'where' question. Your assumption that such a question is a 'specific' request for an address is ridiculous. I'm sure you yourself make no such assumption in most contexts.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 01, 2013, 08:54:32 AM
The request for an address was the next sentence spoken by Sean. But why 'very next'? To me, that intensifier implies that it was spoken immediately after. It came about 20 seconds later, after three sentences of Zimmerman's directions.

As those directions show, an address is not the only way to answer a 'where' question. Your assumption that such a question is a 'specific' request for an address is ridiculous. I'm sure you yourself make no such assumption in most contexts.

More important is why would Zimmerman answer the question, "All right, where are you going to meet with them at?" at that point, by giving directions to the car on TTL if he had the intent of getting an address on RVC for the police?  How can anybody accept Zimmeman's later claims that he was going to RVC for an address there if all the evidence on the NEN tape shows he was not?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 01, 2013, 09:18:38 AM
I think the prosecution will say this is a lie because Dee Dee will contradict it. She hasn't explicitly denied it in what has been released so far, but she also hasn't been asked about it. 

I don't agree that this was an earlier incident, or that it was at the clubhouse. If the circling happened at all, I think it corresponds to the 'hand in the waistband' incident on the police call recording, and it all happened on TTL.

I'm interested in why you disagree.

I discussed this in an earlier post. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2161.msg103338.html#msg103338)

I am not sure that the earlier post represents your current views so maybe you should restate them.  In particular, you didn't seem to be all that sure then that Zimmerman moved his truck from the clubhouse to the cut through but I think the move is implied by the change from giving the clubhouse address at the start of the tape to the directions to the cut through later.  Right now, I am on the fence as to whether there were actually two incidents of Martin approaching the car or Zimmerman manufactured one of them.  The key point, the prosecution will go after, is the contrast between Zimmerman's claim of fear as the reason he didn't want to identify himself then, with his later sojourn in the cut through which he wouldn't have done if he had any fear.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on January 01, 2013, 10:09:41 AM
I would love to see everything on that wall.

Next time I'm that way I'll do my best to remember to take some pictures of it.

I have no illusions that everyone would agree with our work, or that it would change anyone's mind who is already convinced George is a liar; I only brought it up in response to RickyJim's claim that some of us aren't critically examining the evidence.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on January 01, 2013, 12:05:53 PM
At the time that Sean said 'We don't need you to do that', and Zimmerman responded 'OK', Zimmerman had already given the clubhouse address, and Sean had not asked for any other address.

It is beyond absurd to suggest that Zimmerman took the cross walk to the eastern leg of Retreat View Circle, because he thought he would find the correct address for the clubhouse there.

This has likely either already been said before, or I'm assuming too much with this, but:

GZ goes from attempting to give Sean an address to telling him to have the police call and he'll tell them where to meet him.

After hanging up, he may have realized that they would enter through the back entrance, and thought the easiest thing to tell them was to just keep going up RVC until they reached the top of the "T", in front of 2861 according to one map I've seen.

So he walked to RVC to be able to tell them the address on RVC to stop in front of, so they could walk towards where his truck was parked, rather than trying to guide them through RVC/TTL or down TTL.

Of course, this is merely conjecture of why he might've actually been looking for an address on RVC, and it would've helped if GZ had said this during all his interviews.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: lin on January 01, 2013, 01:13:36 PM
I am not sure that the earlier post represents your current views so maybe you should restate them.  In particular, you didn't seem to be all that sure then that Zimmerman moved his truck from the clubhouse to the cut through but I think the move is implied by the change from giving the clubhouse address at the start of the tape to the directions to the cut through later.  Right now, I am on the fence as to whether there were actually two incidents of Martin approaching the car or Zimmerman manufactured one of them.  The key point, the prosecution will go after, is the contrast between Zimmerman's claim of fear as the reason he didn't want to identify himself then, with his later sojourn in the cut through which he wouldn't have done if he had any fear.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the conflict.  Zimmerman not wanting to give his address was likely out of concern for possible future property damage committed stealthily, or even possibly endangering his family when he is not home.  It's just not the smartest thing to do, to announce to someone who may have a reason to want to "get even" how they can easily achieve it, you know? 

I am admittedly not nearly as well versed in this case as most, if not all posting here.  However, it seems to me that Zimmerman has been pretty clear that he thought Martin was long gone, likely heading out the back entrance, and not a danger on the dogwalk.  That he had the presence of mind to realize that Martin or someone else could have overheard his conversation does not, to me, necessarily indicate that Zimmerman was afraid of an imminent violent attack. 

In Zimmerman's mind at the time, Martin was a "suspect" possibly looking to steal and whose primary motivation at the moment was to "get away"; not a violent predator about to attack him.  Again, Zimmerman was likely much more concerned about future property damage, or just being generally cautious without putting even that much thought into it.  Otherwise, of course he would have retreated at least to his vehicle, if not to his home, under his bed.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on January 01, 2013, 02:41:11 PM
...

After hanging up, he may have realized that they would enter through the back entrance...


Would where the officer(s) entered depend on from which direction he, she, or they were coming, and be unknowable in advance to Zimmerman?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on January 01, 2013, 02:43:43 PM
Can you point to a specific example, where a specific inconsistency by Zimmerman can be attributed to a specific trick by the investigators?...

Well, there is the "they tricked him by asking questions" theory.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 01, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
AIF, if I understand what you are saying, the reason Zimmerman went to RVC was to get the address, on a street whose name he knew, of the house next to the cut through to TTL (2861 RVC?) so the police could go there and finally find him somewhere.  I don't believe that at all.  Garrulous Zimmerman never told the dispatcher that was his intent and still was giving directions to the car late in the call and neither gave the RVC address to anyone nor offered any proof he got it.  Yet he hatched such a plan as soon as he got out of the car?  He ended up telling the dispatcher to just have the police call him when they arrived.  That means he might not be close to the cut through by the time the police came.  He had no intent besides running around looking for Martin and the hell with the dispatcher's advice.  the only reasonable explanation, I know, for the address story is his refusal to take responsibility for the recklessness of his behavior.

GZ has never said his initial thought upon leaving his vehicle was to go to RVC to get an address   He has stated he got out to look for a sign on TTL.  He says he then went up the top of the 'T' and then at some point to RVC.  In his walk through the next day, he indicates he was on the call with NEN when he went to RVC and started walking back while still on the call.  Personally, I think he has this detail incorrect and was at the T while talking with the dispatcher and didn't go to RVC until later.  I suggest this because you can hear two metal objects hitting together has he talks to the dispatcher.   I think most accept the likely source to be his flashlight on the metal doggie station.  GZ saw TM run up the dog walk so I think thats where he stood waiting to see if TM would reappear.  I think what prompted him to go to RVC was near the end of the NEN call when he and the dispatcher were working out the details of where GZ could meet police.  The dispatcher suggest the mail area.  GZ realizes he doesn't have a better address and at first agrees, then sees RVC, a street he recognizes, and suggest police call him when they are in the area and he can lead them to him.  I think he then hangs up with the dispatcher and heads to RVC to get a house number.   Not yet having the address would explain why one wasn't given to the dispatcher and would account for a minute or so of time from the time GZ hangs up with the dispatcher until he remerges along the T where he and TM meet. 

I had suggested that maybe GZ took a second trip to RVC after hanging up with the dispatcher, but I would think this would be a detail GZ would remember.  I think its more likely he mixed up being on RVC versus the 'T' as he talked to the dispatcher for a couple of minutes after TM disappeared.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 01, 2013, 04:03:55 PM
After hanging up, he may have realized that they would enter through the back entrance

The word 'realize' implies the police actually did go in the back (southeast) entrance. Did they?

I don't recall reading anything that specifically said how Smith or Ayala entered the complex, but their reports show that until they received 911 information they were responding to 1111 RVC, the clubhouse, which is near the front (north) entrance.

It's possible that Zimmerman assumed that they would come through the back entrance because he said Martin was running that way. But it was after saying that, that Zimmerman gave the dispatcher directions from the clubhouse, and the dispatcher made the counter suggestion of meeting at the mail boxes, which are next to the clubhouse. And Zimmerman had also said 'I don't know where this kid is', implying Martin might be close enough to eavesdrop, and that Zimmerman wasn't particularly confident that Martin had continued to head for the back entrance after he disappeared.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 01, 2013, 04:19:56 PM
Would where the officer(s) entered depend on from which direction he, she, or they were coming, and be unknowable in advance to Zimmerman?

The Retreat at Twin Lakes has a 15 mph speed limit. If I were on S. Oregon Ave. near the back entrance, and wanted to go to the vicinity of the clubhouse, I think I would rather drive around to the front entrance than go through the complex.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 01, 2013, 05:54:32 PM
Maybe it's just me but I don't see the conflict.  Zimmerman not wanting to give his address was likely out of concern for possible future property damage committed stealthily, or even possibly endangering his family when he is not home.  It's just not the smartest thing to do, to announce to someone who may have a reason to want to "get even" how they can easily achieve it, you know? 
Hi Lin.  I think you misunderstood the context of my reply to NM_NM.  We were not discussing Zimmerman's hesitancy to give his home address to the dispatcher.  The conflict I see is between Zimmerman telling investigators Singleton and Serino that while in his car he didn't identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watch person out of fear and his later getting out of the car to follow, eh look for Martin in a dark area.  I am sure the prosecution will try to make the most of that.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 01, 2013, 07:02:05 PM
More important is why would Zimmerman answer the question, "All right, where are you going to meet with them at?" at that point, by giving directions to the car on TTL if he had the intent of getting an address on RVC for the police?  How can anybody accept Zimmeman's later claims that he was going to RVC for an address there if all the evidence on the NEN tape shows he was not?

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but will place it here in a direct response.  I don't think he had an address for any house on RVC (and didn't recall the name of TTL) while he was actively communicating with the dispatcher.  I believe when he said to the dispatcher "can you just have them call me and I will tell them where I am at" is when he first thought to go to RVC to get an address.  It was closer to where he was located than the mailboxes, he knew the name of the street, would be an easy location for police to meet him, was near the last place he spotted TM and he seemed comfortable hanging out in that area.  There are two issues with this theory.  One, GZ seems pretty sure he was on RVC while talking with the dispatcher and two, it would raise a question of why he began walking back to his truck. 

The first issue could be resolved if GZ went walking back to RVC to get the address after hanging up with the dispatcher.  He doesn't mention a second walk back to RVC during any of his interviews, but I also don't think he said he got an address while talking with NEN.  Personally, .I think he would remember walking back a second time and wouldnt' have left this detail out, so my theory would be that he didn't go to RVC while on the call with the dispatcher.  I think he hung out at the 'T', banging his flashlight on the doggie station, looking down the 'T' to see if he could spot TM and didn't make the trek to RVC until after hanging up with NEN.  I'd suggest he was retracing his steps accurately, just not the exact timeline of those steps.   The alternative would be that he was trying to conceal where he was an when and is lying in all of his statements and was seeking out TM.   I guess its possible, but its clear GZ wasn't running during the last 2 minutes or so of the NEN call and its clear the argument/fight started around the 'T'.   I'm not sure I see any possibility in GZ walking up the T or RVC towards TM's house and getting back to the T in time for the confrontation to occur when it did.

So why would GZ have gone to RVC to get an address, then walk back to his vehicle, which would have been closer to the mailboxes/clubhouse, if he was going to use the RVC address to help police locate him?  Not sure GZ has provided details on this or was asked specifically.   Could be after hanging up with dispatcher and getting the address, he felt vulnerable and sought a safer place.  Could be that it started raining hard enough that he didn't want to wait outside any longer for police to get there.  I'd go with the second given the witness accounts that it started raining pretty hard around this time.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 01, 2013, 07:05:02 PM
GZ has never said his initial thought upon leaving his vehicle was to go to RVC to get an address.
Ok, so it was his second thought.  I recommend everybody read the transcript of the portion of the reenactment (http://crimewatchers.forumotion.com/t85-transcript-of-video-reenactment-2-27-12) that deals with the trip along the cut through and contrast it with the corresponding portion of the NEN call.  The former is all about the address hunt; the latter doesn't mention it.  The account in the reenactment ends up with this amazing statement:
Quote
And then they said, ahhh....I said he's not here, they said do you still want them to come and I said yes and they said where do you want them to com to and I said, you know what just tell him to meet me at my truck next to the clubhouse, if you go straight into the clubhouse and makes a left I have a silver Honda Ridgeline that's parked right there, I'll meet him right there. So I started walking back (the proceed to walk back to where they came from)
Did he forget that he had driven with the investigators from the clubhouse to the cut through?  I just am hoping the defense does get police confirmation that the Ridgeline was really parked at the cut through and Zimmerman didn't chase Martin from the clubhouse on foot.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 01, 2013, 07:17:52 PM
Could be that it started raining hard enough that he didn't want to wait outside any longer for police to get there.  I'd go with the second given the witness accounts that it started raining pretty hard around this time.
Please supply a reference for the "witness accounts" that it started to rain pretty hard after he hung up with the dispatcher (7:13:39PM EST).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 01, 2013, 08:32:38 PM
He has stated he got out to look for a sign on TTL.

Zimmerman never explained why he expected to see a sign when he was out of the truck that he couldn't see from inside the truck.

He changed the story in his last interview.

2/29-3, 6:51-55
Quote
Serino: OK. So you basically jumped out of the car, to see where he was going?

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.
 

leftwig
Quote
He says he then went up the top of the 'T' and then at some point to RVC.

Zimmerman said no such thing in the SPD interviews. Over and over, he said he went through the T on the way to Retreat View Circle. He said he 'walked past' or 'walked through' or 'walked straight through.' When Serino asked if he stopped at the T, he said: 'No. I walked through. I stopped on Retreat View Circle.' (2/29-3, 13:15-18)

Audio (http://www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/19101074/article-Video--audio-tell-George-Zimmerman%E2%80%99s-account-of-Trayvon-Martin-shooting-?instance=home_news_right)

In the reenactment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) Zimmerman did stop walking in that area, but he didn't say he stopped there on the night of the shooting. He said, 'I looked around and I didn't see anybody.' (5:51-54)

Zimmerman also stopped at the beginning of the sidewalk. In both cases it seems to be because of how much he had to say about the location, not necessarily to show that he had stopped there the night before.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 01, 2013, 11:29:57 PM
In his walk through the next day, he indicates he was on the call with NEN when he went to RVC and started walking back while still on the call.  Personally, I think he has this detail incorrect and was at the T while talking with the dispatcher and didn't go to RVC until later.  I suggest this because you can hear two metal objects hitting together has he talks to the dispatcher.   I think most accept the likely source to be his flashlight on the metal doggie station.

The taps don't sound like metal hitting metal to me. They aren't clangy enough.

To me it sounds just like a flashlight being struck against flesh or clothing, jostling its innards.

I wouldn't think a person would want to hit the flashlight against another metal object, risking damage to both.

Assuming the sounds are metal hitting metal, have 'most' checked to see if there are any metal objects at the RVC end of the cut through?

There is a blocky object, maybe a transformer or some such utility box. You can see it well on this video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14BtKKufFwI&feature=youtu.be) starting at 6:15.

You can see it from a distance in the reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) starting about 5:30 until about 6:19. Unfortunately, the camera operator kept his lens mostly on Zimmerman, so by the time the party reached the area the box was no longer in view.

BTW, the tapping begins a second or two after the wind noise ends. I'm agnostic on the meaning of the wind noise, but it's an interesting coincidence.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 02, 2013, 12:07:21 AM
Next time I'm that way I'll do my best to remember to take some pictures of it.

I have no illusions that everyone would agree with our work, or that it would change anyone's mind who is already convinced George is a liar; I only brought it up in response to RickyJim's claim that some of us aren't critically examining the evidence.

This is what I picture would be going on during an investigation.  A wall with all kinds of evidence/notes on it.  Making a binder out of it.  Probably too much TV.  Well, there is that ....and the fact that I am incredibly nosy. 

8-)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: spectator on January 02, 2013, 05:35:48 AM
Did he forget that he had driven with the investigators from the clubhouse to the cut through? 





Why do you think GZ couldn't move his truck?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 06:01:52 AM
Why do you think GZ couldn't move his truck?
???  Read what I wrote carefully next time you reply, please.  In the statement I quoted, Zimmerman is implying he didn't move it after parking at the clubhouse.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 02, 2013, 07:19:58 AM
Ok, so it was his second thought.  I recommend everybody read the transcript of the portion of the reenactment (http://crimewatchers.forumotion.com/t85-transcript-of-video-reenactment-2-27-12) that deals with the trip along the cut through and contrast it with the corresponding portion of the NEN call.  The former is all about the address hunt; the latter doesn't mention it.  The account in the reenactment ends up with this amazing statement:Did he forget that he had driven with the investigators from the clubhouse to the cut through?  I just am hoping the defense does get police confirmation that the Ridgeline was really parked at the cut through and Zimmerman didn't chase Martin from the clubhouse on foot.

I didn't say an address hunt was or wasn't his top priority.  I said that when he exited his truck, it wasn't his first thought to go to RVC to get an address.  GZ has said he looked for signs on TTL before moving up the T.  Getting the address on RVC came later.

I think what you quote is a great example of how someone doesn't remember every detail of a conversation or an action that they performed.  I feel fairly certain that GZ knew his NEN call was recorded, so it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for him to give statements to police and "lie" about what he was doing and what took place during the NEN because there would be a record of it.  I think what you get in his statements and NEN are his best recollection of what happened with a bit of him trying to cover his butt which I see as normal and to be expected of someone in that position.  ITs on record that GZ has some memory issues, he suffered some head trama that evening, was involved in a shooting and was asked a lot of questions many different ways the night of and the day after the incident.  If his story was an exact match each time, I'd be suspicious of it being contrived.  If you look at any witness who gave more than one statement about the events that evening, their details they provide differ with each statement they gave.  I don't think its out of the ordinary. 

That being said, there certainly are some issues with GZ's statements that the prosecution will point out.  The question is, what is the significance of those inconsistencies and is there anything in them that is contradictory of other evidence for how the fight started and whether GZ reasonably feared for his life?  If the fight started at the T and its clear from the NEN that GZ wasn't chasing anyone around the last 2 minutes of the call, does it really matter whether he stopped at the T or walked straight through to RVC?   Does it matter whether GZ got out of his vehicle to look for an address or see where TM ran off to if he wasn't chasing him around during the NEN?  Does it matter if GZ parked 10 feet, or 60 feet from the bend in TTL?

I don't think the details of his exact footsteps with commentary to the second matter all that much.  IF he said he walked along the 'T' between TTL and RVC and the argument/fight starts in that location and no other evidence puts him at any other location, then whether he completed his call with NEN while at the 'T" or at RVC, doesn't really matter.  What matters is whether GZ attacked, or did anything illegal to provoke an attack from TM and whether GZ used reasonable force to stop TM (meaning he reasonably feared great bodily harm or worse).  There is physical evidence and eye witness accounts of GZ suffering from an attack.  There is no physical evidence of TM being attacked and I think the statements from Dee Dee regarding whether GZ bumped/pushed TM first will not be allowed. 

As for the rain, I believe it was the retired teacher that mentioned going to shut her windows because it started raining harder and it was about  this time she heard the arguing voices (second time she heard voices).  She commented to police she could believe anyone was out in that rain. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 02, 2013, 07:39:09 AM
The taps don't sound like metal hitting metal to me. They aren't clangy enough.

To me it sounds just like a flashlight being struck against flesh or clothing, jostling its innards.

I wouldn't think a person would want to hit the flashlight against another metal object, risking damage to both.

Assuming the sounds are metal hitting metal, have 'most' checked to see if there are any metal objects at the RVC end of the cut through?

There is a blocky object, maybe a transformer or some such utility box. You can see it well on this video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14BtKKufFwI&feature=youtu.be) starting at 6:15.

You can see it from a distance in the reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) starting about 5:30 until about 6:19. Unfortunately, the camera operator kept his lens mostly on Zimmerman, so by the time the party reached the area the box was no longer in view.

BTW, the tapping begins a second or two after the wind noise ends. I'm agnostic on the meaning of the wind noise, but it's an interesting coincidence.

Sounds like metal on metal to me, though just because it sounds that way doesn't mean it was.  I agree that I personally would not chose to bang the flashlight on something metal like the doggie station, but GZ was distracted by being on call with NEN, looking for an address and to see where TM went, so I doubt he put much thought into what he was banging his flashlight on. 

I understand those that are looking at all of GZ's statements to various police officers, but I think if we are trying to get the most accurate picture of what GZ did and when that night, the video walk thru is the best source of information.  He had some time to digest what occurred and he is telling the account in a chronological order as he recalls it while tracing the path he took, not responding to questions that would have had things out of order.   I do understand that on that video he doesn't specify how long he lingered at the T before going to RVC and that he details making it to RVC while on the call with the dispatcher.   Its been a while since I've viewed that video, but I recall a statement about noticing RVC at some point after being out of his vehicle and having the epiphany that he knew that street and could find an address to give police.  That doesn't sound to me like someone who walked straight there, but of going there after stopping somewhere. 

As has been mentioned before, GZ has a bad memory.  We all have heard that, but the NEN call gives us a pretty clear picture of how bad it is since  he can't even remember the name of street that he is parked on.   I know the prosecution will focus on these inconsistent statements.  I just don't see that the exact details of his footsteps matter all that much as long as there isn't any witness that contradicts GZ being along the T and that GZ wasn't chasing down TM or doing anything illegal to try to detain him.   While the recording of the NEN does bring out some inconsistencies in GZ's statements, it provides a valuable piece of evidence that shows GZ talking calmly and politely to the dispatcher and not participating in any sort of pursuit or chase.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 02, 2013, 07:44:29 AM
At the time that Sean said 'We don't need you to do that', and Zimmerman responded 'OK', Zimmerman had already given the clubhouse address, and Sean had not asked for any other address.

It is beyond absurd to suggest that Zimmerman took the cross walk to the eastern leg of Retreat View Circle, because he thought he would find the correct address for the clubhouse there.
I have never suggested any such ignorance why would you?
The fact is that Zimmerman's actions and impetus were dynamic; Sean's questions seemed to imply that he thought GZ was in a static position, Zimmerman sought to answer four different address questions the clubhouse address, the truck location, his home address and finally the location to meet police.
I have already stated agreement the primary reason he left the vehicle was to maintain visual contact, however once out and after Sean's suggestion he continued on toward RVC to likely try and regain visual but along the way the  address quest became a very real motivation... so why ignore it as if it never happened?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 02, 2013, 07:47:19 AM
The request for an address was the next sentence spoken by Sean. But why 'very next'? To me, that intensifier implies that it was spoken immediately after. It came about 20 seconds later, after three sentences of Zimmerman's directions.

As those directions show, an address is not the only way to answer a 'where' question. Your assumption that such a question is a 'specific' request for an address is ridiculous. I'm sure you yourself make no such assumption in most contexts.
probably not, but that is personal. Sean's question proves the directions were not an adequate response.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 07:55:56 AM
As for the rain, I believe it was the retired teacher that mentioned going to shut her windows because it started raining harder and it was about  this time she heard the arguing voices (second time she heard voices).  She commented to police she could believe anyone was out in that rain.
Check out the thread on W18.  She is just about the worst witness of the bunch.  Anyway, the timing she gives for the rain getting harder doesn't jibe with the time Zimmerman would have decided not to wait for the police on RVC.   

As for the rest of what you say, I agree that objectively, whether incorrect and contradictory information Zimmerman has given stems from conscious lying or some other reason isn't such a big issue in evaluating his self defense claim.  However, there are other forces in play besides objectivity.  I am wondering if anybody knows if a self defense claimant has been granted immunity under the Florida SYG law, without testifying at the Dennis hearing.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 02, 2013, 07:59:32 AM
The Retreat at Twin Lakes has a 15 mph speed limit. If I were on S. Oregon Ave. near the back entrance, and wanted to go to the vicinity of the clubhouse, I think I would rather drive around to the front entrance than go through the complex.
conversely if you wanted someone to apprehend a fleeing suspect at or near the south end of the dog walk you might suggest they use the rear entrance rather than drive through the complex.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 02, 2013, 07:59:40 AM
Kindly provide proof of your qualifications to make such a detailed diagnosis about someone you've never met.


Sounds like a lay opinion to me.

Then he should qualify it somehow, don't you think? If I said it, you'd be all over me for it.
 ;D
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Lousy1 on January 02, 2013, 09:04:08 AM
Hi Lin.  I think you misunderstood the context of my reply to NM_NM.  We were not discussing Zimmerman's hesitancy to give his home address to the dispatcher.  The conflict I see is between Zimmerman telling investigators Singleton and Serino that while in his car he didn't identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watch person out of fear and his later getting out of the car to follow, eh look for Martin in a dark area.  I am sure the prosecution will try to make the most of that.

I think you mean the difference between not directly confronting an aggressive stranger vs walking past an area that was once part of the flight path of an  assumed fleeing scoundrel.

When do you think it would have been OK for GZ to use that part of his property? Next day? Should he wait a month?

It seems reasonable to me to assume that the risk of a confrontation was severely diminished and that  TM had run out of the property in a manner consistent with other interlopers.

If the suspect was a legitimate guest ( and was not fleeing from the man with the phone) the he should not be considered a threat.


Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 09:41:55 AM
I think you mean the difference between not directly confronting an aggressive stranger vs walking past an area that was once part of the flight path of an  assumed fleeing scoundrel.

When do you think it would have been OK for GZ to use that part of his property? Next day? Should he wait a month?

It seems reasonable to me to assume that the risk of a confrontation was severely diminished and that  TM had run out of the property in a manner consistent with other interlopers.

If the suspect was a legitimate guest ( and was not fleeing from the man with the phone) the he should not be considered a threat.
Just assuming the dangerous person was out of the immediate area because he was seen rounding a corner seems reckless to me.  You imply there were prior incidents to give Zimmerman such confidence.  Please share them.  Zimmerman later admitted that the dispatcher was correct in suggesting he stop "following" yet he continued to do that and made up his tale of going to RVC for an address to justify ignoring the dispatcher.   Obviously I am not in the camp of those who defend his performance that evening as admirable. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 02, 2013, 11:13:55 AM
Just assuming the dangerous person was out of the immediate area because he was seen rounding a corner seems reckless to me.  You imply there were prior incidents to give Zimmerman such confidence.  Please share them.  Zimmerman later admitted that the dispatcher was correct in suggesting he stop "following" yet he continued to do that and made up his tale of going to RVC for an address to justify ignoring the dispatcher.   Obviously I am not in the camp of those who defend his performance that evening as admirable.

W18 is not a good witness for either side.  I assume she is capable enough of determining whether it is raining hard or not.  You can check the bank videos if you want exact timing for the rain events.

What is your evidence for the bolded?  IS there anything in the NEN call showing that GZ was tailing Martin after GZ acquiesced to the "we don't need you to do that" suggestion?  Are there any witnesses in the neighborhood that contradict his claim that he was anywhere other than along the 'T' between TTL and RVC before the confrontation takes place?  Does Dee Dee place GZ anywhere that contradicts his statement of being along the 'T'?  GZ may or may not have gotten an address on RVC, but is there any evidence that contradicts his claim to doing so?

What one thinks of GZ's actions isn't terribly relevant to what can be proven about those actions in a court of law.  Being a husband and a father, I think the evidence we have bears out that he reacted fairly reasonably to seeing something that looked out of place.  I know when our neighborhood had some break in issues, I was on high alert for anything that looked suspicious and called the police one time on some suspicious activity.  I think calling the police and trying to keep an eye on a suspicious person is quite reasonable (he did not confront TM or exit his vehicle until after TM went out of sight).  Whether he did more than that before the two met face to face is unclear, but evidence of him doing anything else appears lacking.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 02, 2013, 11:48:37 AM
I feel fairly certain that GZ knew his NEN call was recorded

Is that the only thing he could not have forgotten?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 12:03:15 PM
What is your evidence for the bolded?  " Zimmerman later admitted that the dispatcher was correct in suggesting he stop "following" yet he continued to do that and made up his tale of going to RVC for an address to justify ignoring the dispatcher."
I've been writing a large number of posts the past few days giving the evidence details.  Instead of going back to the car when the dispatcher implied he should do that, 15 seconds into his journey, Zimmerman plowed ahead to RVC.  He doesn't deny that.  He said Yeah to the "Are you following?" and Okay to the "We don't need you to .." and did not do anything differently from what he would have done had the dispatcher said nothing.  Have you compared the transcripts of the sections of the NEN call and reenactment like I suggested to you previously?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on January 02, 2013, 12:09:24 PM
The word 'realize' implies the police actually did go in the back (southeast) entrance. Did they?

I don't recall reading anything that specifically said how Smith or Ayala entered the complex, but their reports show that until they received 911 information they were responding to 1111 RVC, the clubhouse, which is near the front (north) entrance.

It's possible that Zimmerman assumed that they would come through the back entrance because he said Martin was running that way. But it was after saying that, that Zimmerman gave the dispatcher directions from the clubhouse, and the dispatcher made the counter suggestion of meeting at the mail boxes, which are next to the clubhouse. And Zimmerman had also said 'I don't know where this kid is', implying Martin might be close enough to eavesdrop, and that Zimmerman wasn't particularly confident that Martin had continued to head for the back entrance after he disappeared.

You're absolutely right, using "realized" implies that GZ knew the police would come in the back way.

I should've said something more like "assumed," but I was thinking of GZ recalling past experiences with SPD responding to RTL after he called where they had entered through the back entrance*, then suddenly remembering he had said the suspect was running toward the back entrance, and they might try to come in through that entrance to spot him.

So, based on this assumption, he suddenly realized telling them the address on RVC at the top of the T would be easier than guiding them from the front entrance to the spot on TTL his truck was parked.

Or, obviously, not.

----

*And, yes, I'm assuming they had entered this way on previous responses. I don't know-- but I bet you do (or will soon).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 02, 2013, 12:34:54 PM
I've been writing a large number of posts the past few days giving the evidence details.  Instead of going back to the car when the dispatcher implied he should do that, 15 seconds into his journey, Zimmerman plowed ahead to RVC.  He doesn't deny that.  He said Yeah to the "Are you following?" and Okay to the "We don't need you to .." and did not do anything differently from what he would have done had the dispatcher said nothing.  Have you compared the transcripts of the sections of the NEN call and reenactment like I suggested to you previously?

Yes, I read the transcript and have some familiarity with the re-enactment video.  He mentions stopping at the T and talking with the dispatcher (no amount of time specified other than he noted TM was gone and he had trouble getting his flashlight working while standing at the T.  He also says he then went to RVC and that he was still talking to the dispatcher.  He also relays some conversation that didn't take place with NEN.  I don't think he's lying about what he recalls from that conversation, I think he's just relaying details of things he think he talked about that could have come from other conversations (some of his other NEN calls provide similar conversations).   Again, I don't think he got to RVC before hanging up with NEN.  He relays that NEN kept on him about an address, though they never did which to me seems to indicate getting an address was important to him, maybe because he had difficulty relaying his exact location and maybe because he wanted to be sure to emphasize that he wasn't following TM (probably some of both).  I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to infer in comparing the transcript of his walk through with the NEN call.  I think he was off where he was when he connected with NEN (I think he pulled over to the clubhouse to call, but wasn't yet connected or he would have detailed TM walking past and out of sight and wouldn't have said "the best address I can give you" is the clubhouse if he was parked there at the time).  I think he connected with NEN after TM passed him at the clubhouse. 

I must have missed it.  When  did the dispatcher imply that GZ return to his car?  TM was out of sight according to GZ when the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow him and this appears to be corroborated by Dee Dee.  I don't see anything in the NEN that expresses where the dispatcher felt GZ should be before or after this event.  I guess I'd think if the dispatcher was wanting GZ to wait in his car, he would have responded so when they were discussing where police would meet him and when GZ asked that he have police call him when they are in the area so he can let them know where he is.   The dispatcher never mentioned GZ's car as a rallying point.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Lousy1 on January 02, 2013, 12:41:25 PM
Just assuming the dangerous person was out of the immediate area because he was seen rounding a corner seems reckless to me.  You imply there were prior incidents to give Zimmerman such confidence.  Please share them.  Zimmerman later admitted that the dispatcher was correct in suggesting he stop "following" yet he continued to do that and made up his tale of going to RVC for an address to justify ignoring the dispatcher.   Obviously I am not in the camp of those who defend his performance that evening as admirable.


From Zimmerman's earlier 911 calls

In another call on August 6, 2011, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher there are two youths back in the neighborhood that were also previously identified by his wife for a prior break-in. He describes them as two black males in their late teens.

"They typically run away quickly and I think they head over to the next neighborhood over so you may want to send a unit over [there],” Zimmerman says.
The FBI witness interviews also contain multiple references (generally by neighbors ) to teenagers entering and fleeing the complex. You can be your own research assistant to validate the obvious.
What do you think the 'goons always get away comment means?.


Quote
Obviously I am not in the camp of those who defend his performance that evening as admirable.


Obviously I do not proscribe to the pedantic posturing of those judge based primarily on pompous hindsight.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 12:58:05 PM

From Zimmerman's earlier 911 calls

In another call on August 6, 2011, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher there are two youths back in the neighborhood that were also previously identified by his wife for a prior break-in. He describes them as two black males in their late teens.

"They typically run away quickly and I think they head over to the next neighborhood over so you may want to send a unit over [there],” Zimmerman says.
The FBI witness interviews also contain multiple references (generally by neighbors ) to teenagers entering and fleeing the complex. You can be your own research assistant to validate the obvious.
What do you think the 'goons always get away comment means?.
In which prior cases did Zimmerman claim that he was so fearful of the suspect that he refused to identify himself as Neighborhood Watch while in his car?  In which prior case did Zimmerman indicate that the suspect showed hostility towards him by coming close to check him out while tugging at his waistband or coming out of the darkness to circle the car and then return to the darkness?  It which prior case did Zimmerman follow the suspect with his car and made the suspect feel he was being followed?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Lousy1 on January 02, 2013, 01:16:19 PM
In which prior cases did Zimmerman claim that he was so fearful of the suspect that he refused to identify himself as Neighborhood Watch while in his car?  In which prior case did Zimmerman indicate that the suspect showed hostility towards him by coming close to check him out while tugging at his waistband or coming out of the darkness to circle the car and then return to the darkness?  It which prior case did Zimmerman follow the suspect with his car and made the suspect feel he was being followed?

In the earlier case Zimmerman refused to leave his home and confront the individual ( even though his gun was probably available if he wanted to reprise Naked Gun 2.5)

What does that any of this have to do with observation that based on his own and others past experiences, Zimmerman would consider it likely that the suspicious stranger had fled the complex?
I believe that was the  position that you were challenging.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 01:54:38 PM
I have seen no evidence that a reasonable person would interpret rounding the corner into the dog path  as, the stranger was probably leaving the complex.  Why did Zimmerman later in the call express concern that the suspect was close enough to hear him give out his home address?  My guess is that he found out the wrongness of his assumption after watching on RVC, in vain, for Martin heading on TTL towards the back entrance.  I wish an investigator asked him why then he didn't wait for the cops on RVC by the "address" he took it upon himself to hunt instead of possibly confronting, in the dark cut through, this feared person he thought might be near.    In the prior cases, did somebody actually see the suspects exit?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on January 02, 2013, 02:00:13 PM
I have seen no evidence that a reasonable person would interpret rounding the corner into the dog path  as, the stranger was probably leaving the complex.

If the person looked like they were hurrying away, I probably would, and I think I'm reasonably reasonable. In any event, since Zimmerman said Martin was running, and said he was headed to the back entrance, there's no necessity to apply the "reasonable person" standard when we can rely on Zimmerman's own words, reasonable or not.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 02, 2013, 02:20:11 PM
Yes, I read the transcript and have some familiarity with the re-enactment video.  He mentions stopping at the T and talking with the dispatcher (no amount of time specified other than he noted TM was gone and he had trouble getting his flashlight working while standing at the T.

Zimmerman did not say he stopped at the T or was standing at the T. He said the flashlight was 'dead'. He didn't say he tried to get it working at that time.

Zimmerman didn't mention trying to get the flashlight working at any time in the reenactment. He didn't mention that until the last SPD interview on 2/29.

Reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 4:36-6:23
Quote
Zimmerman: And then I thought to get out and look for a street sign.

Sgt. Smith: Right.

Zimmerman: So I got out of my car, and I started walking.

Sgt. Smith: Alright. Go ahead.

Zimmerman: Oh.

[Zimmerman exited the car and stepped in front of it. He waited a moment for the others, then started walking.]

Zimmerman: I was [unintelligible] phone with non-emergency, and I started walking-

Sgt. Smith: OK.

Zimmerman: - down this way. And because I didn't see a street sign here, but I knew if I went straight through, that that's Retreat View Circle, and I could give him an address, because he said "Just give me the address of the house you're in front of."

[Zimmerman stopped, about where the street and sidewalk meet.]

Zimmerman: And no address, because these are the back of the houses.

[Zimmerman started walking.]

Zimmerman: So I walked straight through here. And, I didn't see him, at all. And I was walking. And I was still on the phone with [unintelligible], non-emergency.

Sgt. Smith: OK.

Zimmerman: I got, about, I got to about here.

[Zimmerman was a few feet west of the T. I think he had just passed the corner of the building on his right, but it's hard to tell because the building is no longer in view. He did not stop.]

Zimmerman: And I had a flashlight with me. 

Sgt. Smith: OK.

Zimmerman: The flashlight was dead, though.

[Zimmerman stopped short of the T. The dog station is on the other side of the dogwalk, well out of his reach.]

Zimmerman: I looked around and I didn't see anybody. And I told non-emergency, I said, "You know what, he's gone. He's not even here."

Sgt. Smith: Right. 

Zimmerman: So, I still thought I could use their address -

[Zimmerman started walking.]

Zimmerman: - so I walked all the way through. And, I actually walked all the way to the street. And I was gonna give them this address. And they said, "Well, if he's not there, do you still want a police officer?" And I said "Yes."
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 02:21:17 PM
Yes, I read the transcript and have some familiarity with the re-enactment video. 
You should really study the transcripts side by side.  It is very hard to follow Zimmerman's account in the reenactment in real time.  The person who did the transcription makes comments indicating he thinks Zimmerman is making some stuff up as he goes along.  Then you can go back to the video to see if you agree.  I haven't found any other transcript of the reenactment besides that one.  He also has a transcript of the portion of the CVSA interview where Zimmerman describes the moments before the shooting.   His comments there come close to what some said here on this thread (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2164.msg101591.html#msg101591).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 02, 2013, 02:25:10 PM
Zimmerman did not say he stopped at the T or was standing at the T. He said the flashlight was 'dead'. He didn't say he tried to get it working at that time.

Zimmerman didn't mention trying to get the flashlight working at any time in the reenactment. He didn't mention that until the last SPD interview on 2/29.

Reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 4:36-6:23

I guess its just me, but the transcript you quoted sure appears to have him stopping near the T as he did in the re-enactment video.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 02, 2013, 02:27:34 PM
I have seen no evidence that a reasonable person would interpret rounding the corner into the dog path  as, the stranger was probably leaving the complex.  Why did Zimmerman later in the call express concern that the suspect was close enough to hear him give out his home address?  My guess is that he found out the wrongness of his assumption after watching on RVC, in vain, for Martin heading on TTL towards the back entrance.  I wish an investigator asked him why then he didn't wait for the cops on RVC by the "address" he took it upon himself to hunt instead of possibly confronting, in the dark cut through, this feared person he thought might be near.    In the prior cases, did somebody actually see the suspects exit?

I understand you believe GZ hunted/followed TM after the dispatcher said he didn't have to.  What I am interested in is evidence that contradicts GZ's claim that he was anywhere other than along the top of the 'T' (path between TTL and RVC) prior to the face to face confrontation with TM.  Is there any?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 02:36:57 PM
I understand you believe GZ hunted/followed TM after the dispatcher said he didn't have to.  What I am interested in is evidence that contradicts GZ's claim that he was anywhere other than along the top of the 'T' (path between TTL and RVC) prior to the face to face confrontation with TM.  Is there any?
I don't think he was anywhere else besides there also, except he might have positioned himself on RVC to better watch TTL.  As I have posted previously, the best evidence he never entered the dog path before the fight is that his only working flashlight was a small keychain one.  As for the gist of the question, I consider "Okay, we don't need you to do that." as including "We don't need you to hunt around for a view of the guy by putting yourself in a situation where you could be ambushed."
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 02, 2013, 02:42:10 PM
You should really study the transcripts side by side.  It is very hard to follow Zimmerman's account in the reenactment in real time.  The person who did the transcription makes comments indicating he thinks Zimmerman is making some stuff up as he goes along.  Then you can go back to the video to see if you agree.  I haven't found any other transcript of the reenactment besides that one.  He also has a transcript of the portion of the CVSA interview where Zimmerman describes the moments before the shooting.   His comments there come close to what some said here on this thread (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2164.msg101591.html#msg101591).

What specifically do you take issue with?  We already know he attributes some words to the dispatcher and to himself that weren't actually spoken. 

I think its mostly irrelevant that he didn't recall the conversation correctly word for word or even in the order that things were spoken.  Assume the GZ testifies and the prosecution discredits him as a witness.  They aren't going to get him to say he followed TM after the dispatcher suggested he didn't need to.  Everyone is going to accept that TM hit GZ repeatedly (photos and medical reports don't lie), so the prosecution has to establish that GZ struck first or did something illegal to provoke it.  Where is any evidence for that? 

 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 02, 2013, 02:54:19 PM
I guess its just me, but the transcript you quoted sure appears to have him stopping near the T as he did in the re-enactment video.

How so?

Zimmerman said he continued to talk to the dispatcher, and 'looked around'. He could have done both of those things without breaking stride.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on January 02, 2013, 03:09:46 PM
This is more a "missing discovery" comment, but it closely relates to how the prosecution will present their case.

I think it's really hard to believe no one in the SPD wrote a report on whether Zimmerman's truck was located on the night of the shooting. Even if it wasn't found, information on what areas were checked would be useful in knowing where it wasn't parked. News report footage shows police vehicles in the area on TTL near the dogpath, so I think they wouldn't have overlooked a parked truck, especially if parked on the wrong side of the street. Is this like the evidence map? The map was released long after the close-up evidence photos were released, when there's no apparent reason why it wasn't released in the initial batch of discovery. It's almost as if the state wanted to make it as hard as possible for the defense to analyze the evidence and put together their defense.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: spectator on January 02, 2013, 03:16:05 PM
???  Read what I wrote carefully next time you reply, please.  In the statement I quoted, Zimmerman is implying he didn't move it after parking at the clubhouse.

No Ricky, he's not implying that at all, that's just your unique speculation.

Is the 80 or so yds, not close enough for "next to the clubhouse" ?.

What makes you think people are perfect computers in any situation, let alone his ?.

After all, is it not obvious he's talking about his last parking place on TTL?.

The desperate twisting is a daily occurrence.

But then again it's all BDLR has at this point, so far .
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 03:18:51 PM
What specifically do you take issue with?  We already know he attributes some words to the dispatcher and to himself that weren't actually spoken. 

I think its mostly irrelevant that he didn't recall the conversation correctly word for word or even in the order that things were spoken.  Assume the GZ testifies and the prosecution discredits him as a witness.  They aren't going to get him to say he followed TM after the dispatcher suggested he didn't need to.  Everyone is going to accept that TM hit GZ repeatedly (photos and medical reports don't lie), so the prosecution has to establish that GZ struck first or did something illegal to provoke it.  Where is any evidence for that?
Nobody here is arguing that Zimmerman is guilty under the law of murder/manslaughter.  This thread is all about issues the prosecution might raise to get a conviction anyway.  That Zimmerman lied about some things and exaggerated about others will come up if the case isn't thrown out/dropped before the immunity hearing due to prosecutorial misconduct or revelations coming from the school records.   Sorry, I am not going to go over again the evidence that Zimmerman lied about his intent of getting an address on TTL.  It is abundantly obvious, inter alia, from the transcripts I suggested you compare.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 02, 2013, 03:24:41 PM
I think they wouldn't have overlooked a parked truck, especially if parked on the wrong side of the street.

They may have thought it wasn't involved because it was parked so far away.

Running tags is mentioned in both the May 17 (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf) and July 12 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf) releases.

The first has the report of Sgt. Joseph Santiago (p. 16). He directed an unidentified officer to 'run the vehicle tags parked along the road on both sides of the incident.'

Ever since the first time I read 'both sides of the incident', I've wondered if the tag check stopped at the bend of TTL.

The July 12 release has a summary of an SAO interview with Officer Mike Bernosky, who ran two tags (p.3). It doesn't say if this is the same officer dispatched by Sgt. Santiago.

It does say that the purpose of running the tags was 'to attempt to identify the victim'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 03:35:04 PM
No Ricky, he's not implying that at all, that's just your unique speculation.

Is the 80 or so yds, not close enough for "next to the clubhouse" ?.

Nope, it is not close enough. 
Quote
just tell him to meet me at my truck next to the clubhouse, if you go straight into the clubhouse and makes a left I have a silver Honda Ridgeline that's parked right there, I'll meet him right there.

If you do go into the clubhouse parking lot, according to what was shown in the reenactment, the Ridgeline was parked on the left.  Pretty unsettling.   :o
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 02, 2013, 03:39:58 PM
Zimmerman is implying he didn't move it after parking at the clubhouse.

I don't think 'next to the clubhouse' implies in the clubhouse parking lot.

In the next breath, Zimmerman roughly repeated what he said on the police call, that they would see his truck after rounding the bend on TTL.

In the CVSA, Zimmerman described his second parking spot as 'adjacent to the clubhouse'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 03:49:17 PM
I don't think 'next to the clubhouse' implies in the clubhouse parking lot.

In the next breath, Zimmerman roughly repeated what he said on the police call, that they would see his truck after rounding the bend on TTL.

In the CVSA, Zimmerman described his second parking spot as 'adjacent to the clubhouse'.
Are you talking about the reenactment?  I don't see the part about rounding the bend on TTL in the transcript I am looking at.  I know this is a long shot but if there is no police evidence that the car was parked near the cut though on TTL, the prosecution might go with the theory that Zimmerman chased Martin from the clubhouse to the dog walk T.  The confusion in later interviews about where he  parked before getting out of the car will be an example of how he can't remember his lies.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 02, 2013, 04:17:09 PM
Nope, it is not close enough. 
"just tell him to meet me at my truck next to the clubhouse, if you go straight into the clubhouse and makes a left I have a silver Honda Ridgeline that's parked right there, I'll meet him right there."

Where does that quote originate Ricky? It is not from the NEN call, the NEN transcript says:

2:59:35 - [one tap] Um, if they come in through the, uh, gate [four light taps] tell them to go straight past
the clubhouse [four loud taps] and, uh, [sign or post being jostled by breeze] straight past the clubhouse
and make a left. And then they go past the mailboxes, n' they'll see my truck.

3:18:39 - [crosstalk: unintelligible] Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?
3:21:60 – [mild tap] Um, I don't know. It's a cut-through so I don't know the address.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: spectator on January 02, 2013, 04:29:38 PM
Nope, it is not close enough. 
If you do go into the clubhouse parking lot, according to what was shown in the reenactment, the Ridgeline was parked on the left.  Pretty unsettling.   :o

Well it sounds to me he's on TTL somewhere, but one could also say he crashed into the clubhouse, then left thru the gameroom and ended up outside near the mailthing. ;D
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 04:37:36 PM
Where does that quote originate Ricky?
Sorry, one shouldn't assume everybody remembers the previous posts.   :-[  It is in the transcript of the reenactment (http://crimewatchers.forumotion.com/t85-transcript-of-video-reenactment-2-27-12).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 02, 2013, 04:53:27 PM
it is irrelevant, the paraphrased quote compared to the actual quote prove the fallacy of expecting verbatim reiteration of a simple conversation.
In this instance we have the recorded dialogue and there is no room for misinterpretation. He did not say "go into the clubhouse parking lot" Ever.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 02, 2013, 05:07:22 PM
The Spanish preposition por can mean both into and by, so maybe that's the explanation.   ;)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on January 02, 2013, 05:28:38 PM
They may have thought it wasn't involved because it was parked so far away.
bend of TTL.

The eastward bound portion of the street is about 233' long -- less than a typical city block. I believe it's unlikely the police wouldn't think someone might walk that far. Even if they didn't check more than a short distance from the curve, I think they'd mention that in report. I find it almost unbelievable that the location where Zimmerman parked wouldn't be considered significant enough to analyze in detail. There are brief references to checking tags in the area, but no mention of any effort to use that information to establish Zimmerman's parking location.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 02, 2013, 07:40:25 PM
Quote
just tell him to meet me at my truck next to the clubhouse, if you go straight into the clubhouse and makes a left I have a silver Honda Ridgeline that's parked right there, I'll meet him right there.

If you do go into the clubhouse parking lot, according to what was shown in the reenactment, the Ridgeline was parked on the left. 

I don't agree with the transcript. I hear 'in through the clubhouse', not 'into the clubhouse'.

Comparing with the actual directions in the police call and the various quotes of them in Zimmerman's SPD interviews, I think Zimmerman said 'through' when he meant 'past'. That's Zimmerman giving directions.

If the truck were still in the lot, the police could just pull up beside it. They wouldn't need to 'makes [sic] a left' unless they wanted to ram the truck.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 02:04:42 AM
I don't see the part about rounding the bend on TTL in the transcript I am looking at.

That's my paraphrase. Zimmerman never used such phrases. He always equated rounding that bend to making a left turn, as DFH alluded to. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg105007.html#msg105007) 

Quote
The confusion in later interviews about where he parked before getting out of the car

I don't understand what this refers to. Which interviews are you classing as 'later'?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 03, 2013, 07:23:14 AM
How so?

Zimmerman said he continued to talk to the dispatcher, and 'looked around'. He could have done both of those things without breaking stride.

Could have.  Could have done a lot of things.  I'm supplying thought as to what I see as most likely.  From the NEN call, do you think GZ is more likely to have reservations about giving out his address for not knowing where TM is if he was standing in a darkened area near the T where he last saw TM or while standing on the more lit and open RVC?   

Again, I think the fact that GZ did not give an RVC address to the dispatcher while on the call shows he wasn't on RVC yet.  The dispatcher had asked for an address of his truck and then his own address.  I think GZ had addresses on his mind and if he was on RVC at that time, I can't imagine why he wouldh't have said, "well I'm here at xxxx RVC now".  The only likely possibilities I can think of are that he hadn't been to RVC to get an address yet or that he was walking around somewhere else looking for TM.  Either could be true, but given the other evidence of where the conflict started, the former seems most likely.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 03, 2013, 07:35:35 AM
I don't think he was anywhere else besides there also, except he might have positioned himself on RVC to better watch TTL.  As I have posted previously, the best evidence he never entered the dog path before the fight is that his only working flashlight was a small keychain one.  As for the gist of the question, I consider "Okay, we don't need you to do that." as including "We don't need you to hunt around for a view of the guy by putting yourself in a situation where you could be ambushed."

So, but hunted, you meant looking to see if he could see him, not hunted like trying to track him down.  Sorry, misunderstood.

I don't disagree that the prosecution is going to use GZ's numerous statements and inconsistencies.  I guess my question is in regards to how the prosecution presents their case is, do any of his inconsistencies show that he did anything illegal prior to he and TM meeting face to face?  If the prosecution can't show that GZ did anything illegal prior to an attack by Martin, I don't see how they can win their murder case.  They could still maybe get a manslaughter conviction if they could show GZ didn't reasonably fear for his life before shooting, but given his injuries, witness statements and 911 screams, I don't see that as being any easier for them.  Even if the show that none of what GZ says can be believed, I'm not sure how they apply that to overcoming what they must prove (that he did something illegal to provoke an attack and that he didn't reasonably fear great bodily harm before shooting). 



Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 11:41:12 AM
I'm supplying thought as to what I see as most likely. 

No.

You were making an inaccurate claim about what Zimmerman said.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 03, 2013, 01:52:49 PM
No.

You were making an inaccurate claim about what Zimmerman said.

And yet its interesting that you added this comment in your description of what he did during the re-enactment:

"Zimmerman stopped short of the T. The dog station is on the other side of the dogwalk, well out of his reach." 

He stopped during the re-enactment at the T to mention that he was looking around to see if he could see where TM went and that his flashlight wasn't working.  He didn't do this on his walk up to the T, once he passed the T, or while he was on RVC, but stopped near the T to recount these details. 

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 05:01:33 PM
He stopped during the re-enactment at the T to mention that he was looking around to see if he could see where TM went and that his flashlight wasn't working.

He said the flashlight was dead before he stopped.

Quote
He didn't do this on his walk up to the T, once he passed the T, or while he was on RVC, but stopped near the T to recount these details.

This is ambiguous. Zimmerman did stop where the sidewalk meets TTL. He stopped at the RVC end of his path, strictly speaking short of the street itself. He talked about different things in those places, if that's what you mean.

As I said, Zimmerman was approaching the T, not stopped near it, when he said the flashlight was dead.

None of this changes the fact that Zimmerman did not say he stopped at the T. That was my point.

If you want to argue that everything Zimmerman did in the reenactment reflects what he did on 2/26, I think you will undercut yourself. In the reenactment Zimmerman stopped near the T for a few seconds. I think you want to argue that he was there for a much longer time.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 03, 2013, 05:55:09 PM
If you do go into the clubhouse parking lot, according to what was shown in the reenactment, the Ridgeline was parked on the left. 


I don't agree with the transcript. I hear 'in through the clubhouse', not 'into the clubhouse'.

Comparing with the actual directions in the police call and the various quotes of them in Zimmerman's SPD interviews, I think Zimmerman said 'through' when he meant 'past'. That's Zimmerman giving directions.

If the truck were still in the lot, the police could just pull up beside it. They wouldn't need to 'makes [sic] a left' unless they wanted to ram the truck.

Did Zimmerman use "next to the clubhouse" to describe where he eventually parked in any other interview?  The defense didn't ask Santiago about Zimmerman's vehicle when deposing him.  I didn't see Mike Bernosky's name among the other SPD they plan to depose.  I remember emailing the defense a while back and suggested they nail down where the police found the Ridgeline that evening.  If the prosecution can show it was at the clubhouse all the time, it might be quite damaging to the defense.  For example, it would destroy, "Why didn't Trayvon go home instead of coming back to the T?".  The defense might then call DeeDee instead of the prosecution.   :D 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 07:36:06 PM
Did Zimmerman use "next to the clubhouse" to describe where he eventually parked in any other interview?

No.

In the CVSA he said 'I drove adjacent to the clubhouse.' In context that seems to mean he drove to a place adjacent to the clubhouse and parked there. The truck seems to be parked in the subsequent narrative.

ETA: To clarify, Zimmerman was clearly talking about events after he left the clubhouse parking lot.

Quote
I remember emailing the defense a while back and suggested they nail down where the police found the Ridgeline that evening.

If they found it.

Quote
If the prosecution can show it was at the clubhouse all the time, it might be quite damaging to the defense.  For example, it would destroy, "Why didn't Trayvon go home instead of coming back to the T?".

I don't see that. Even if Martin ran only briefly, starting from the clubhouse, and walked the rest of the way, it looks to me that he had time to get home before the confrontation.

Quote
The defense might then call DeeDee instead of the prosecution.

I think the defense will call her anyway.

From the way Dee Dee acted with de la Rionda, I think she will get evasive before she will say anything remotely against Martin. I think the judge will allow the defense to treat her as hostile, before their first direct is done if not before it starts.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 03, 2013, 08:10:23 PM
In the CVSA, Zimmerman described his second parking spot as 'adjacent to the clubhouse'.
"Adjacent to the clubhouse" was at 6:45:46 PM on the tape and Zimmerman was describing how he drove when leaving the clubhouse to comply with the request from the dispatcher to get a better description of where the suspect was headed.  His actual description of the parking spot at 6:46:15 was "If you come to the clubhouse, you go straight left and you will see me there."

These continual references to the dispatcher insisting on getting the address (but not street name) in front of which he was parked at the cut through were prompted by a single request from Sean made 45-50 seconds after "We don't need you to do that".  There is no indication on the tape that either the dispatcher or Zimmerman though Zimmerman's directions for getting on the correct street were inadequate and Zimmerman could have easily got an address on TTL which he was closer to at the moment of the request:
3:18:39 - [crosstalk: unintelligible] Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?
Yet Zimmerman uses that as his excuse to not get back to the car right away, as in the Serino/Singleton interview (https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079):
Quote
plays tape 2:26 to 2:34 )
Serino: OK, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we don’t need you to do that, what went through your mind?
Zimmerman: He’s right.
Serino: So you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle.
Zimmerman: I still wanted to give him an address.
Serino: OK.

Serino caught him telling a whopper but didn't follow up.  I hope Jeralyn tells us how she handled a client with similar memory problems as Zimmerman.  ;)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 08:21:13 PM
"Adjacent to the clubhouse" was at 6:45:46 PM on the tape and Zimmerman was describing how he drove

I disagree.

Grammatically, 'adjacent to the clubhouse' modifies 'drove' in that sentence. In context, I think the sentence should be understood to mean 'I drove [to a place] adjacent to the clubhouse [and parked there]. I explained why in the previous post.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 03, 2013, 08:28:03 PM
These continual references to the dispatcher insisting on getting the address (but not street name) in front of which he was parked at the cut through were prompted by a single request from Sean, made 45-50 seconds after "We don't need you to do that".  There is no indication on the tape that either the dispatcher or Zimmerman thought Zimmerman's directions for getting on the correct street were inadequate and Zimmerman could have easily got an address on TTL which he was closer to at the moment of the request:
:-[  I did not mean the request for the address there.  I meant he was closer to TTL when Sean said, "We don't need you to do that."
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 03, 2013, 08:46:40 PM
I don't see that. Even if Martin ran only briefly, starting from the clubhouse, and walked the rest of the way, it looks to me that he had time to get home before the confrontation.

If the cops never identified the location of Zimmerman's car, then I think much will change including how much could be proven without Zimmerman taking the stand.  Previously, under the assumption that the car was parked near the cut through, I think it was clear without Zimmerman's post NEN comments, that Martin was at the entrance to the dog path at two times, four minutes apart.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 08:51:30 PM
I meant he was closer to TTL when Sean said, "We don't need you to do that."

Why would you assume that?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 08:54:15 PM
If the cops never identified the location of Zimmerman's car, then I think much will change

Not for me. I never assumed that they did.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 03, 2013, 09:07:53 PM
Quote
Quote from: RickyJim on Today at 10:28:03 PM

    I meant he was closer to TTL when Sean said, "We don't need you to do that."
Why would you assume that?
How far from TTL could he have gotten in the 15 seconds from the time he left the car?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 10:48:53 PM

And, yes, I'm assuming they had entered this way on previous responses. I don't know-- but I bet you do (or will soon).

To the surprise of us both, I still don't know.

The call in which Zimmerman offered to let LE in through the back gate was on 8/6/11, p. 40 of the logs. (http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/911CallHistory.pdf)

For some reason, the last half of the remarks are redacted. There is no information on how the responding officers entered the neighborhood.

ETA: It's interesting that Zimmerman didn't seem to think there would be any problem for the officers getting in the front gate on 2/26. And it seems there was not.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 11:14:37 PM
How far from TTL could he have gotten in the 15 seconds from the time he left the car?

How fast could he run?

I've estimated Zimmerman parked about 170 feet west of the T, using Google Earth, the reenactment, and the Zimmerman/Singleton map. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630981402972/detail/)

To make that in 15 seconds, Zimmerman would need to run at 11.3 fps.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on January 03, 2013, 11:14:57 PM
ETA: It's interesting that Zimmerman didn't seem to think there would be any problem for the officers getting in the front gate on 2/26. And it seems there was not.

Are you referring to the access gate? I believe emergency services have the means to bypass the access/keycard. If you think about it they'd have to be able to. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there were laws requiring 'skeleton key' access for emergency services to gated communities.

One of my own security gates has a box designated for emergency services with a slot for a key. I assume police and fire have that key. The other gate has a keypad and I assume there is a universal access code for police/fire.

Maybe if there are any LE around they can say for sure how it works.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 03, 2013, 11:20:51 PM
I believe emergency services have the means to bypass the access/keycard. If you think about it they'd have to be able to. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there were laws requiring 'skeleton key' access for emergency services to gated communities.

Good point.

Probably Zimmerman didn't realize this on 8/6/11.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on January 04, 2013, 12:14:07 AM
Good point.

Probably Zimmerman didn't realize this on 8/6/11.

I have't read that specific report, but it's possible. If he still didn't know it on 2/26/12 (hard to imagine anyone that makes that many NEN/911 calls from a gated community not knowing) that might be part of the reason he wanted police to call him when they arrive. So he could let them in. I forget, did he actually say why he wanted them to call him in his interviews? If he wasn't asked then in hindsight that would have been a good question.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 04, 2013, 12:43:24 AM
I forget, did he actually say why he wanted them to call him in his interviews? If he wasn't asked then in hindsight that would have been a good question.

Singleton asked him in the last interview, on 2/29. Zimmerman wasn't asked any questions about the recording before that date.

Serino got the recording and listened to it on 2/27, apparently before the reenactment and the CVSA. (pp. 7-8) (http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Pages-from-Police-Reports-without-statements-redacted.pdf)

2/29-3, 15:40-16:03
Quote
Singleton: Why, why did you tell them, "Never mind, just have them call me when they get here, and I'll tell them where I'm at?"

Zimmerman: I was frustrated that I couldn't think of the street name [crosstalk].

Singleton: But you were gonna be back in your car, from that distance, in less than fifteen or twenty seconds. So why would they need to call you?

Zimmerman: I felt like I didn't give them an adequate description of where I was from the clubhouse.

Audio (http://www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/19101074/article-Video--audio-tell-George-Zimmerman%E2%80%99s-account-of-Trayvon-Martin-shooting-?instance=home_news_right)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 04, 2013, 07:28:11 AM
How fast could he run?

I've estimated Zimmerman parked about 170 feet west of the T, using Google Earth, the reenactment, and the Zimmerman/Singleton map. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630981402972/detail/)

To make that in 15 seconds, Zimmerman would need to run at 11.3 fps.
Is there any doubt in your mind that Zimmerman was closer to TTL than RVC when he answered the dispatcher's "We don't need you to do that." with "Okay."?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 04, 2013, 03:37:14 PM
How fast could he run?

I've estimated Zimmerman parked about 170 feet west of the T, using Google Earth, the reenactment, and the Zimmerman/Singleton map. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630981402972/detail/)

To make that in 15 seconds, Zimmerman would need to run at 11.3 fps.

I doubt that he covered 170 feet in those 15 seconds (I think he was parked closer to the bend since he mentioned parking by the sign and near where the truck was located during the walkthru), but assuming those numbers, I'd call that a jog as its roughly an 8 minute mile pace.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 04, 2013, 05:16:50 PM
I think he was parked closer to the bend since he mentioned parking by the sign and near where the truck was located during the walkthru

I think it's clear that he mentioned the sign and truck to indicate the general area. The place the truck actually parked is almost identical to the one marked on the map. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630981402972/detail/) If that were not the place Zimmerman meant to indicate that he parked, I think he would have said so when Sgt. Smith parked there. In fact he confirmed the location.

I think that is where Zimmerman parked, unless he was being intentionally deceptive.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 04, 2013, 05:50:01 PM
I think it's clear that he mentioned the sign and truck to indicate the general area. The place the truck actually parked is almost identical to the one marked on the map. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630981402972/detail/) If that were not the place Zimmerman meant to indicate that he parked, I think he would have said so when Sgt. Smith parked there. In fact he confirmed the location.

I think that is where Zimmerman parked, unless he was being intentionally deceptive.

Jeralyn had a crime screen photo that showed a truck alongside the curb.  That one was a grey Nissan, IIRC.  Do you remember it?   He would have had to of parked further west of that one.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 04, 2013, 06:00:45 PM
Is there any doubt in your mind that Zimmerman was closer to TTL than RVC when he answered the dispatcher's "We don't need you to do that." with "Okay."?

Certainly.

I wouldn't express it like that, because I don't think there is a presumption either way. Why do you?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 04, 2013, 06:14:38 PM
It was in reply to post #437 from you which went:

Quote
Quote from: RickyJim on January 03, 2013, 10:28:03 PM

    I meant he was closer to TTL when Sean said, "We don't need you to do that."


Why would you assume that?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 04, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
Jeralyn had a crime screen photo that showed a truck alongside the curb. 

Isn't that the truck Leftwig (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg105166.html#msg105166) was talking about, or one parked in the same place? Or is there yet another truck?

I've just realized I created a possibly confusing ambiguity by repeating the word 'truck'.

I think it's clear that he mentioned the sign and truck to indicate the general area. The place the truck actually parked is almost identical to the one marked on the map. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630981402972/detail/)

This would have been better:

I think it's clear that he mentioned the sign and truck to indicate the general area. The place Sgt. Smith actually parked is almost identical to the one marked on the map.

I don't even know if Smith was driving a car or a truck. This car/truck thing is getting old. I want to just write 'vehicle', but using three syllables where one will do feels stilted.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 04, 2013, 06:43:57 PM
It was in reply to post #437 from you which went:
Quote
Quote from: RickyJim on January 03, 2013, 10:28:03 PM

    I meant he was closer to TTL when Sean said, "We don't need you to do that."


Why would you assume that?

OK.

I had forgotten that the same question was already asked and not answered. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

I hope I have answered your question.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 04, 2013, 11:38:10 PM

I haven't read that specific report, but it's possible.

The written report is vague in paraphrasing Zimmerman. I was thinking of the audio. (http://www.seminolesheriff.org/administration/SiteData/MediaFiles/Zimmerman%2020112182271.mp3) I listened to it on a site that the moderator doesn't want us to link. It took a little time to find an acceptable link.

It's about 50 seconds into the call.

Quote
I'll actually be at the back gate to let the officers in, because there's no code there.

I don't know what 'no code' would mean, but maybe Zimmerman had to open the gate manually because it wasn't working properly that day. Maybe they were in the process of setting of them up.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 05, 2013, 03:53:19 PM
In the earlier case Zimmerman refused to leave his home and confront the individual

I don't believe Zimmerman was ever asked to 'leave his home and confront the individual'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 05, 2013, 04:55:13 PM
There is no indication on the tape that either the dispatcher or Zimmerman thought Zimmerman's directions for getting on the correct street were inadequate

There are two such indications. The dispatcher asked for an address, and to make that request he interrupted Zimmerman.

Noffke didn't need another address for the paperwork. The clubhouse address was sufficient for that purpose. He asked for the address where the truck was parked because Zimmerman wanted to meet at the truck instead of the clubhouse. There was no reason for him to do that if he thought the directions were adequate to the purpose.

I can't make out what Zimmerman was saying when the dispatcher was talking over him at that point, but others say he was describing the truck. Zimmerman said that after giving directions to the truck he gave its make, model, and color. He said that in the reenactment, just after the part that we have been discussing, and at other times in the SPD interviews.

When Zimmerman said 'They'll see my truck', that was the first time he indicated a specific place of meeting. Noffke immediately pounced on that, asking for an associated address. It sounds to me like Noffke had no intention of passing on to police that they should follow some directions and look for a truck of a certain description. He just wanted to be able to send them to an address.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the dispatcher shared my low opinion of the quality of Zimmerman's directions in particular. I've worked as a security guard myself, and I've experienced the limitations of radio communication. I'm skeptical that any police department would want to rely on second-hand directions transmitted by radio.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 05, 2013, 06:20:38 PM
The dispatcher wanted a house number which was understandable.  There is no indication that he also needed the street name; that is the police wouldn't be able to find the street from Zimmerman's directions.   There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman was dissembling to Serino and Singleton when he gave the need to get an address on RVC as the reason for not going back to the car.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 05, 2013, 07:45:29 PM
The dispatcher wanted a house number

He asked for an address.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 05, 2013, 11:35:36 PM
In any event, since Zimmerman said Martin was running, and said he was headed to the back entrance, there's no necessity to apply the "reasonable person" standard when we can rely on Zimmerman's own words, reasonable or not.

That's not exactly what Zimmerman said. He used 'toward the other entrance . . . The back entrance', to indicate the direction Martin was running. I don't think that necessarily means he had jumped to the conclusion that the back entrance was Martin's destination.

Zimmerman said something early in his first SPD interview that I think is very interesting, and hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.

2/26-1, 9:44-10:03
Quote
Singleton: OK, let's get back to where you were. OK. You started a neighborhood watch group?

Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.

Singleton: OK. And?

Zimmerman: I had called before, and the police had come out. But, these guys know the neighborhood very well, and they would cut in between buildings and lose -

Singleton: You're saying "these guys." Who are "these guys"?

Zimmerman: The people coming in, the burglars.

To me it sounds like Zimmerman would have anticipated the possibility that Martin would try to elude him by changing directions once he was out of sight.

The remarks expand on the 'always get away' comment in the police call recording. They are part of Zimmerman's response to Singleton asking him for 'Anything you want to tell me about what happened and why it ended up, what it ended up to, to where this, this, this boy got shot.' (2/26-1, 2:37-53)

All of this leaves me wondering how long the possibility of following the next suspect had been on Zimmerman's mind.

Audio (http://www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/19101074/article-Video--audio-tell-George-Zimmerman%E2%80%99s-account-of-Trayvon-Martin-shooting-?instance=home_news_right) of SPD interviews.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on January 06, 2013, 01:48:24 AM
I remain convinced that Noffke interrupted to ask for the address nearest Zimmerman's vehicle because he thought Zimmerman's directions up 'til then were positively craptacular, and he wanted some place specific to which he could direct the responding officer(s).

Of course he apparently made the mistake of thinking Zimmerman would remain with his vehicle.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 06, 2013, 06:14:18 AM
He asked for an address.
Quote
1:45:65 - When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you'd – would
go past the clubhouse— [he's trying to explain his location on Twin Trees, southeast of the clubhouse,
not at the clubhouse itself].
1:54:26 - Okay, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?
1:57:62 - No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight
in, don't turn and make a left
Dispatcher hadn't asked for an address when Zimmerman volunteered the above.  Zimmerman's later claim that Martin was circling his truck imples  it was at the same time he was giving these directions.
Quote
2:22:79 - Are you following him?
2:24:98 - Yeah.
2:25:20 - Okay, we don't need you to do that.
2:27:75 - Okay.
Zimmerman claimed later to Serino and Singleton that he didn't return to his truck right after his "Okay" because he felt obligated to go to RVC to get an address because he felt his previous directions were no good.
Quote
2:57:16 - All right, where are you going to meet with them at?
2:59:35 - [one tap] Um, if they come in through the, uh, gate [four light taps] tell them to go straight past
the clubhouse [four loud taps] and, uh, [sign or post being jostled by breeze] straight past the clubhouse
and make a left. And then they go past the mailboxes, n' they'll see my truck.
3:18:39 - [crosstalk: unintelligible] Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?
3:21:60 – [mild tap] Um, I don't know. It's a cut-through so I don't know the address.
If he really had getting an address in mind when going to RVC, he would have given the dispatcher at that point 2861 Retreat View Circle which, is right next to the cut through.
Quote
HANNITY: What did you do from that moment forward? Because this is where we get into this minute gap in this case, you know, and what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said "we don't need you to follow him?" What did you do next?

ZIMMERMAN: I walked across the sidewalk on to my street, Retreat View Circle, where I thought I would meet a police officer that I had called.

HANNITY: So you did not continue to follow him at that point?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. No, sir.

HANNITY: All right. So you continue from there, you sounded at that moment on the tape, though, a little bit distracted. What was the distraction? Were you looking for him, or?

ZIMMERMAN: I wanted to make sure that -- I believe they asked me for my address, and I wanted to be sure that nobody was lingering and could hear my address and then come back. And I was making sure that there wasn't anybody that was going to surprise me, and just trying to give them an accurate location.

HANNITY: Because they said, you know, can we meet you here at a certain location, and you said have them call me.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

HANNITY: Why did you want them at that point to call you?

ZIMMERMAN: I hadn't given them a correct address. I gave them a -- the clubhouse vicinity. However, I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle, and I was going to give them the actual street number and name.
So almost 5 months later Zimmerman is still prevaricating, with O'Mara sitting right there!  I wonder what Zimmerman would have said if Hannity asked him why he didn't give that address to the dispatcher and/or wait on RVC for the cops, since he was afraid somebody "would surprise me". 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 06, 2013, 06:38:21 AM
Zimmerman's later claim that Martin was circling his truck implies it was at the same time he was giving these directions.

Why do you say that?

This sort of claim needs to be argued for, not merely asserted.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 06, 2013, 07:01:36 AM
Zimmerman claimed later to Serino and Singleton that he didn't return to his truck right after his "Okay" because he felt obligated to go to RVC to get an address because he felt his previous directions were no good.

Only once in all the interviews did Zimmerman express dissatisfaction with his directions. This was late in 2/29-3, the last part of the last interview. Singleton had asked him to explain why he asked for the police to call him on arrival.

Zimmerman never gave dissatisfaction with his directions as a reason for going to RVC for an address. He consistently said that he gave the dispatcher directions after he reached RVC. In the reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) he said 'I was gonna give them this address,' before he evidently changed his mind and gave directions instead. (5:59-7:08)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 06, 2013, 08:33:16 AM
Why do you say that?

This sort of claim needs to be argued for, not merely asserted.
It amounts to matching different descriptions of what was going on just before Zimmemran exits the car.  In the NEN call Zimmerman interrupts giving (for the first of 2 times) directions to his car at the cut through (we hope it was there) with an exclamation that Martin was running and then gets out of the car.
Quote
1:57:62 - No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight
in, don't turn and make a left – [2:06:89] sh*t, he's running. [in real time this is at 7:11:41 PM].
2:08:82 - He's running? Which way is he running? [truck door opens, door open chime/alarm]
2:10:24 - Uh [grunts while exiting truck] down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood [door
closes].
This appears to correspond to the circling time he tells Singleton, a few hours later in the first interview:
Quote
Singleton: And is he walking completely around the car?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: Um, and, dispatch asked me where he went. I didn’t know the name of the street that I was on, I
Singleton: So you’d come off your street and gotten to another street
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: at some point? OK.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am. Goes in, cuts through the middle of my neighborhood.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: I didn’t know the name of the street. Um, or where he went. So I got out of my car to look for the street sign, and to see if I could see where he cut through so that I could tell the police where…
Second interview that evening, a similar story:
Quote
Singleton: OK. So he’s circling your car…
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: Are you still on the phone?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: With dispatch? OK. Are you giving them a description or anything
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: of what’s going on? OK, where does he go where you lose sight of him again?
Zimmerman: He walked back into the darkness here.
Singleton: He went there, OK.
Zimmerman: And…
Singleton: He walks back in here
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: …does he make the turn, does he go…
Zimmerman: I don’t…
Singleton: You don’t know. By the time he gets here you can’t see him.
Zimmerman: Correct.
Singleton: OK. And you’re still in your car?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: And you’re watching him walk away?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK, and then what happens?
Zimmerman: The dispatcher asked me what direction he went on and exactly what address I was at.
Singleton: And this is when you don’t realize what street you’re on, cause you’re on the center street and you live on the outside one?
Zimmerman: Correct.
Singleton: OK. So you’re trying to figure out what street you’re on, OK. So you see him go here, and then, so what do you do, to try to…
Zimmerman: I got out of my vehicle to look at this house’s address, and see if there was a sign there.
By the time of the reenactment, the next day, Zimmerman had totally garbled up the timing of different things on the NEN call, he again omits the running, but still gives getting out of the car as what happens after giving directions to the car and the circling.
Quote
And then he came back and he started walking up towards the grass and then came down and circled my car. And I told the operator that. He was circling my car, I didn't hear if he said anything but he had his hand in his waistband, and I think I told the operator that and they said where are you and I could not remember the name of the street because I don't live on this street. Retreat View Circle goes in a circle and I said I don't know and he goes, we need an address and I said I don't know an address, I think I gave them my address and they said give us directions to get to you and I said if you tell the police to go straight at the clubhouse and make a left my truck will be there. And again they asked me where he went what direction he went in and I said I don't know. And then I thought to get out and look for a street sign. So I got out of my car and I started walking...
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 06, 2013, 08:39:36 AM
I remain convinced that Noffke interrupted to ask for the address nearest Zimmerman's vehicle because he thought Zimmerman's directions up 'til then were positively craptacular, and he wanted some place specific to which he could direct the responding officer(s).

Of course he apparently made the mistake of thinking Zimmerman would remain with his vehicle.
I am a bit confused by your post unitron.  Noffke asked Zimmerman for the address after the latter was out of the vehicle.  Are you saying that Noffke thought he had returned to it?  Do you see any indication the Zimmerman, while on the call, realized his directions weren't good?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 06, 2013, 01:03:26 PM
It amounts to matching different descriptions of what was going on just before Zimmemran exits the car.  In the NEN call Zimmerman interrupts giving (for the first of 2 times) directions to his car at the cut through (we hope it was there) with an exclamation that Martin was running and then gets out of the car.This appears to correspond to the circling time he tells Singleton, a few hours later in the first interview:
I would assert the circling happened just prior to the exchange you marked Ricky, between these times:
0:58:01- Yeah, now he's coming towards me [possible door lock].
0:59:61 - Okay.
1:03:11- He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male [power window switch].
1:09:68 - Okay, how old would you say he is—
1:10:92 - He's got a button on his shirt – late teens.
1:13:76 - Late teens? Okay.
1:15:52 - Mm-hmm [possible door lock switch again]. Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to
check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.
1:27:41- Okay. Just let me know if he does anything, okay? [crosstalk: Please just get an officer over
here].
1:29:89 - Yeah, we've got him on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
1:34:25- Okay [turns in seat]. These assholes, they always get away. Yep [power window switch or gear
shift and four footsteps/fade].

So, GZ says Martin is approaching him, expresses genuine concern if not fear and then as the transcriber notes you can hear him turning physically in his seat... while he does not announce the circling it seems to happen here rather than during the direction exchange. IMO.

re: Unitron's post, Noffke asked for address' at 0:48.74 and 0:53.~ Sean first asks to clarify the address and then begins to ask again for the address before being cut off mid sentence "...do you know what the "; it seems clear to me he was asking for the address again and this is well before GZ exits the vehicle. Zimmerman obviously understood it that way as he provides directions to his current location at that point.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 06, 2013, 01:22:40 PM
AIF, do you think that there was only one incident of Martin approaching Zimmerman's truck?  The section you quote is definitely while Zimmerman was parked at the clubhouse.  Zimmerman's later accounts seems to say that there was a separate incident while he was parked at the cut through.  He does bring in elements that he described to the dispatcher, like "hand in his waistband" into the second incident which seems to be the circling one.  I would be interested in understanding the pros and cons of one incident versus two.  Previously NM_NM has said he is in the one incident camp.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 06, 2013, 01:41:30 PM
personally, I believe the above between 1:15-1:35 is the one and only moment that any circling occurred; if TM approached the vehicle before that it was not in a manner that was confrontational maybe nothing more than a passby.
I just can not find time fore more than one instance... but then I was not there... they say anything is possible.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on January 06, 2013, 01:49:27 PM
The section you quote is definitely while Zimmerman was parked at the clubhouse.

Definitely, as in "a proven fact," or definitely, as in "that's what RickyJim thinks"?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on January 06, 2013, 02:24:17 PM
...

re: Unitron's post, Noffke asked for address' at 0:48.74 and 0:53.~ Sean first asks to clarify the address and then begins to ask again for the address before being cut off mid sentence "...do you know what the "; it seems clear to me he was asking for the address again and this is well before GZ exits the vehicle. Zimmerman obviously understood it that way as he provides directions to his current location at that point.

Are you confusing the attempt to find out whether Zimmerman omitted a digit in the address of the clubhouse with the later attempt to get a location where the responding officer(s) could meet up with Zimmerman?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 06, 2013, 02:40:57 PM
Definitely, as in "a proven fact," or definitely, as in "that's what RickyJim thinks"?
I would hope both.   :)  I am taking as holy writ Lee M's transcrip (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/alternatetranscript.pdf)t of the NEN call, including interpretations of noises, as well as the assumption that Zimmerman is accurately describing what he sees and does while on that call.  With that basis, everything up to approximately 1:30 takes place at the clubhouse while from 1:45 on takes place at the cut through since that section starts with him giving directions to the cut through.  Do you see things differently?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 06, 2013, 03:06:05 PM
personally, I believe the above between 1:15-1:35 is the one and only moment that any circling occurred; if TM approached the vehicle before that it was not in a manner that was confrontational maybe nothing more than a passby.
I just can not find time fore more than one instance... but then I was not there... they say anything is possible.

Why do you rule out a circling somewhere between 1:45 and 2:08?  Zimmerman perhaps wasn't able to multitask so just stuck to giving directions instead of mentioning it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on January 06, 2013, 03:56:10 PM
I am a bit confused by your post unitron.  Noffke asked Zimmerman for the address after the latter was out of the vehicle.  Are you saying that Noffke thought he had returned to it?  Do you see any indication the Zimmerman, while on the call, realized his directions weren't good?

After "We don't need you to do that.", Noffke probably made the mistake of thinking Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, a quite understandable mistake since Zimmerman appeared to be attempting to tell him how to find his vehicle when asked at where he wanted to meet up with the police.

As for Zimmerman's opinion of Zimmerman's directions, I'm uncertain, so I don't know what part, if any, that would have played in influencing his subsequent actions.

If he had turned right around and headed back to his truck after "We don't need you to do that", either Martin would have had to have jumped him on his way there if Martin was intending to at any point to do him harm, and it would have been recorded on Zimmerman's non-911 call, or he'd have gotten back to the truck safely and could have met the police at the mailbox kiosk and told them where he'd last seen Martin and in what direction he was traveling and made it their problem.

And he agreed to meet at the mailboxes.

But then he changed his mind.

I don't know why he did, but I certainly wonder about it.

If he did because he wanted to keep going on over to RVC to get an address there to give them at which to meet him, then you'd think he'd go there and get the address and wait there for them to call.

Otherwise it would have made more sense to go back to his truck and drive over there to get the address and wait for the call.

If he'd already made it that far during the call he would have been able to give Noffke that address and say he'd meet them there and stand under the street lamp or something.

He seems to have tried to keep his options open and then chose the worst possible combination of them for some reason.

You'd think that during the walk-through he'd have said, when they got to the eastern end of the short sidewalk, "...and I walked over here far enough to see the address on that house right there...".

Even if he subsequently forgot the number, it would seem he could remember having actually gotten it and from which house.

So it's all a puzzlement.

As to whether he agreed to meet at the mailboxes and then changed his mind because of something he saw, or for some other reason, I do not know, but certainly wonder about.

It just would have made more sense for him to stay in his truck, out of the rain, behind headlights far brighter than any flashlight, and driven to wherever he thought he needed to go far faster than he could have walked there.

But again, I think Noffke thought his directions were craptacular and wanted something better and more definite.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 06, 2013, 04:27:14 PM
As to whether he agreed to meet at the mailboxes and then changed his mind because of something he saw, or for some other reason, I do not know, but certainly wonder about.

Zimmerman's unhappiness about the mailbox suggestion is evident in his voice. It sounds like he agreed grudgingly, because he hadn't thought of an alternative that he liked. It seems he was trying to think of one even as he spoke.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 06, 2013, 06:28:10 PM
assumption that Zimmerman is accurately describing what he sees and does while on that call. 

Do you mean just the call itself, or also 2/29-3, when Zimmerman was confronted with the recording? In context it seems you mean the latter.

If so, why would you assume 2/29-3 is correct, and other statements that conflict with it are wrong?

In 2/29-3, there is no mention of Martin circling the truck, and Zimmerman explicitly said he was behind Martin when he was giving directions.

The last point was documented in the post (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2161.msg103338.html#msg103338) I linked up-thread. I've repeated the link for convenience.

I believe Zimmerman was confused by being confronted with the recording for the first time, making 2/29-3 less accurate on some points than his other statements.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 06, 2013, 07:05:03 PM
No, the NEN call is the most reliable statement we have from Zimmerman.  You make a good case that the circling when the truck was at the cut through never happened but I still consider it possible since Zimmerman didn't have that much of a reason to lie about it and off hand, I don't know why 20-25 seconds is too short a time for it.  What other stuff in the 2/29-3 interview do you regard as having some sort of conflict with the NEN call?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 03:05:56 AM
Do you mean just the call itself, or also 2/29-3, when Zimmerman was confronted with the recording? In context it seems you mean the latter.

No, the NEN call is the most reliable statement we have from Zimmerman. 

I don't understand why you wrote 'everything up to approximately 1:30 takes place at the clubhouse'. From the police call recording alone, I would never have thought Zimmerman was at the clubhouse.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 07, 2013, 08:05:34 AM
I don't understand why you wrote 'everything up to approximately 1:30 takes place at the clubhouse'. From the police call recording alone, I would never have thought Zimmerman was at the clubhouse.
From this bit, where else could he be?
Quote
0:48:74 - Okay and you say it's one-one-one-one Retreat View or one-eleven?
0:52:53- That's the – that's the clubhouse [crosstalk: that's the clubhouse, do you know what the] he's at
the clubhouse now.
0:55:82 - He's near the clubhouse right now?
0:58:01- Yeah, now he's coming towards me [possible door lock].
I agree that we don't know from the above that up to approximately 1:30 he is in the parking lot of the clubhouse, but it is clear he is parked somewhere close to it and the lack of appropriate car noises indicates he did not move the car in that period.

Now at this point one can deduce that car is in motion.  Zimmerman does not want this asshole to get away:
Quote
1:34:25- Okay [turns in seat]. These assholes, they always get away. Yep [power window switch or gear
shift and four footsteps/fade].
Below he is not giving directions to the clubhouse so he has moved his car to a different location:
Quote
1:45:65 - When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you'd – would
go past the clubhouse— [he's trying to explain his location on Twin Trees, southeast of the clubhouse,
not at the clubhouse itself].

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 07, 2013, 08:24:51 AM
AIF, do you think that there was only one incident of Martin approaching Zimmerman's truck?  The section you quote is definitely while Zimmerman was parked at the clubhouse.  Zimmerman's later accounts seems to say that there was a separate incident while he was parked at the cut through.  He does bring in elements that he described to the dispatcher, like "hand in his waistband" into the second incident which seems to be the circling one.  I would be interested in understanding the pros and cons of one incident versus two.  Previously NM_NM has said he is in the one incident camp.

I think the opposite.  I don't think GZ is parked at the clubhouse during any of the time he is talking to the dispatcher, though I think its possible he was just pulling out of there when he first started talking.  The reason being, the first thing he mentions is breakins and a suspiciously looking guy, then says, "the best address I can give you is 111 RVC".  Why would GZ say "the best address I can give you" is the clubhouse if he were parked there at the time?  Wouldn't he have just said "I'm parked at the clubhouse which is 111 RVC" if he were parked there? 

When GZ says TM was just looking around at houses, then says "Now he's staring at me".  Where would TM be at this time?   And a few seconds later when GZ says "thats the clubhouse, he's at/near the clubhouse, now he's coming towards me", I'm not sure how that fits a scenario of GZ being parked at the clubhouse.

I wouldn't say its impossible for GZ to be at the clubhouse during the first 90 seconds or so of the NEN, but I don't think its likely.  In subsequent interviews, GZ seems sure of pulling over at the clubhouse to call the NEN and TM walking past him and out of sight around the bushes while he was parked there.  He seems less sure in those interviews on where he was when he actually began talking with the dispatcher.  I'd say the collection of evidence seems to indicate GZ was not sitting parked at the clubhouse during the NEN.  I am going to guess GZ's statement now that he's had a chance to digest the NEN call and match it to his recollection of events will provide a more accurate timeline.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 07, 2013, 09:01:15 AM
In the first four minutes of the reenactment video, Zimmerman is believable.  He doesn't have any reason not to tell the truth about any of the things he mentioned happening and I don't find much variance with later statements.  In particular, that includes seeing Martin in front of Taafe's house, parking at the clubhouse to call the NEN and then moving to the cut through, at which time Martin circled the car.  He was wrong that he told the dispatcher about the last incident and that point of the reenactment marks the start of a number of contradictions to what was said on the NEN call and other statements.  The prosecution's job is to make the contradictions part of a deliberate scheme to deceive while the defense will try to claim they were all consequences of ADD/ADHD.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 09:05:25 AM
I agree that we don't know from the above that up to approximately 1:30 he is in the parking lot of the clubhouse, but it is clear he is parked somewhere close to it

How close?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 07, 2013, 09:15:27 AM
Since I am assuming his descriptions of Martin's movements on the call are correct, if Zimmerman wasn't in the clubhouse parking lot, he was on RVC, close to the clubhouse west of the beginning of TTL.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 09:25:47 AM
  Previously NM_NM has said he is in the one incident camp.

Do you happen to recall when I said that?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 07, 2013, 09:51:48 AM
Do you happen to recall when I said that?
Other than it was in this thread, no.  :-[  There are too many posts to go through to find it.  But if you say it never happened, I will apologize.  Better, just say what you think now about whether there were one or two incidents.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 10:44:08 AM
But if you say it never happened, I will apologize.

No, I didn't mean that. I may have said something that could be plausibly interpreted that way. I'm just curious to know what it would have been.

I don't feel confident asserting an opinion either way, but it's hard for me to believe that there could have been more than one passing of the truck, or that Zimmerman passed Martin closely in front of 1460 RVC. That's because of what I hear in Zimmerman's voice when he said certain things.

Quote
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yeah. He's coming to check me out.  He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: OK. Just let me know if he does anything.
Zimmerman: [Crosstalk] get an officer over here.

It's hard to believe this is the second time Martin walked past Zimmerman's truck.

Quote
Zimmerman: Yeah, he's a black male.
Dispatcher: OK. How old would you say he is [crosstalk]?
Zimmerman: He's got a button on his shirt. Late teens.

It's harder to believe this is the third time Zimmerman had a close look at Martin.

ETA: Come to think of it, there's an even stronger clue in Zimmerman saying 'He's coming to check me out.' I don't think that makes sense if they have already been in close proximity twice, and traded stares the first time.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 07, 2013, 11:10:45 AM
GZ describes TM passing his SUV while he parked at the clubhouse then disappearing around the corner.  I do not believe this event is described on the NEN and that it occurs before he starts talking with the dispatcher.  GZ has some confusing statements about whether this occurred as he was calling NEN or whether he was actively talking to NEN. 

GZ almost from the beginning of the connection with NEN has difficulty explaining where he's located.  I think it can be attributed to several things; he doesn't recall the name of TTL, just describing it as a cut through (another indication he's not at the clubhouse), he's trying to keep an eye on TM and describe what he's doing and he's trying to locate a street sign/address.   I don't think mutli-tasking is a strong suit for someone with ADD.

I think the NEN will be used by both sides, but I think now that the defense has had a chance to review the call and go through GZ's actions in detail, his testimony will give with that recording better.  Maybe having a poor memory on some things myself helps me empathize with GZ, but I don't hold him to a standard that his statements should match a perfect timeline with a recorded conversation.   Its clear he recalls saying some things and hearing some things from the dispatcher that just were never said.  I think his memory on what he saw and where he walked is probably more accurate.  The prosecution will try to point out inconsistent statements, the defense will say the gist of them are the same and we can make them fit into the timeline of the call.  I'm not sure how the prosecution uses his statements to show GZ illegally confronted TM or didn't fear great bodily harm. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 07, 2013, 12:09:32 PM
Do you happen to recall when I said that?
it seems to be the gist of your comment you linked here (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2161.msg103338.html#msg103338)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 07, 2013, 12:21:05 PM
I agree with Leftwig on GZ movements; I believe that he (GZ) was likely in constant motion right until the moment he exited the vehicle something Noffke failed to appreciate which caused the address/location confusion.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 05:01:54 PM
GZ describes TM passing his SUV while he parked at the clubhouse then disappearing around the corner. 

Zimmerman gave a more detailed, and illustrated, description (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630878225642/) in 2/26-2. (Click thumbnail pics to enlarge, right-click for more options.)

In that version, Martin disappeared around the corner of a house on TTL.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 06:01:42 PM
it seems to be the gist of your comment you linked here (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2161.msg103338.html#msg103338)

Thanks.

I see the confusion.

Quote
Only one such episode is evident from the police call.

I chose my words carefully, but I guess I should have addressed that point explicitly. The argument I was making in that post, is consistent with the possibility of an earlier passing of the truck, before the recording began. Or, possibly, overlapping with the recording but unremarked.
 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 06:06:44 PM
I believe that he (GZ) was likely in constant motion right until the moment he exited the vehicle

I don't see how. Too much time, not enough space.

ETA: That would also be inconsistent with Zimmerman's SPD interviews. And what about Martin circling the truck? Did he do that while it was in motion?

Quote
something Noffke failed to appreciate which caused the address/location confusion.

I don't understand this.

Zimmerman gave directions to a location where he said his truck would be when the police arrived. What difference does it make where he or the truck were when he gave the directions, or whether he or the truck were stationary or in motion at the time?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 07, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
I think the dispatcher knew where to send the police just from the street name Retreat View Circle.  I think he had some sort of map with house numbers.
Quote
0:04:38 - Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. Uh, it’s
Retreat View Circle. Um, the best address I can give you is one-eleven Retreat View Circle.

0:48:74 - Okay and you say it's one-one-one-one Retreat View or one-eleven?
<His reason for questioning the address Zimmerman gave might be that his map showed 4 number addresses on RVC.>

1:27:41- Okay. Just let me know if he does anything, okay? [crosstalk: Please just get an officer over
here].
1:29:89 - Yeah, we've got him on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else

Zimmerman never says on the call that he did not know the name of the street on which he finally parked, Twin Trees Lane; we have only his later word he had forgotten it.  He doesn't ask Sean for the name of the other street in the Retreat at Twin Lakes complex. 
Quote
3:18:39 - [crosstalk: unintelligible] Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?
3:21:60 – [mild tap] Um, I don't know. It's a cut-through so I don't know the address.

Of course the natural thing would have been to give the closest address but Zimmerman didn't want to admit that he had not gone back to his car.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 08:37:10 PM
Zimmerman never says on the call that he did not know the name of the street on which he finally parked, Twin Trees Lane; we have only his later word he had forgotten it. 

I thought he had forgotten it before the SPD interviews were released. If he knew the name I thought he would have mentioned it as he gave directions, to make the directions clearer.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 07, 2013, 08:49:15 PM
I forgot to ask where the street signs on Twin Trees Lane are.  You would think one would be on the corner of the intersection with Retreat View Circle, by the clubhouse.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 09:08:28 PM
I forgot to ask where the street signs on Twin Trees Lane are.  You would think one would be on the corner of the intersection with Retreat View Circle, by the clubhouse.

Yes. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630837258338/detail/)

See also this thread. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2176.0.html) (Glancing over it, I see you participated at the time.)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 07, 2013, 09:59:25 PM
Totally forgot about it.  Looking over the thread, it seems that positions haven't changed much since then.  Maybe I should give Zimmerman's excuse for going to RVC a rest.  I think the prosecution may want to attack more his account of the shooting itself.  However, there I am more able to understand gross inaccuracies.  The thing there that bothers me the most is him claiming he thought he might have missed, yet him only firing one shot.  None of this seems to approach real evidence it wasn't self defense.  Maybe Corey's best hope is that she will be able to find an effective court room cross examiner for the case.  Using BDLR might cause the judge/jurors to sympathize with Zimmerman.  Nobody has answered my question as to whether anybody has been granted immunity in Florida without testifying at the Dennis hearing so I will ask it again.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 07, 2013, 10:14:18 PM
The thing there that bothers me the most is him claiming he thought he might have missed, yet him only firing one shot.

 I answered that. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg104682.html#msg104682)

If you found that unsatisfactory, I don't think you have explained why.

By the time Zimmerman concluded he had missed, he also thought Martin was surrendering.

Quote
Nobody has answered my question as to whether anybody has been granted immunity in Florida without testifying at the Dennis hearing so I will ask it again.

I would also like an answer to that.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 08, 2013, 06:43:14 AM
I answered that. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg104682.html#msg104682)

If you found that unsatisfactory, I don't think you have explained why.

By the time Zimmerman concluded he had missed, he also thought Martin was surrendering.

Would the firearms training Zimmerman had undergone teach him to fire more than one bullet if he had to stop an attacker?  What do you think the prosecution would harp on if they could cross examine Zimmerman about the fight and shot?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 08, 2013, 07:27:16 AM
I don't see how. Too much time, not enough space.

ETA: That would also be inconsistent with Zimmerman's SPD interviews. And what about Martin circling the truck? Did he do that while it was in motion?
Yes it does run counter to his statement but I believe that statement had become antagonistic and George had retreated to denial, regardless the question.
I just find a leap frog movement hard to accept and personally find it easier to understand if he is following behind at a slow pace... It was not that long ago you did the picture and tracked TM movements as possible between the homes to the North after he disappeared around the TTL corner from the clubhouse, that stuck with me as a point that might mark the " now he's coming to check me out" marker...
Of course I am deep in opinion here.

Quote
I don't understand this.

Zimmerman gave directions to a location where he said his truck would be when the police arrived. What difference does it make where he or the truck were when he gave the directions, or whether he or the truck were stationary or in motion at the time?
Noffke continued to ask for a specific location, I believe he wanted to tie GZ down to one spot; George kept changing his response based upon his current position, the two seemed to have a profound inability to communicate effectively.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 08, 2013, 07:35:55 AM
Would the firearms training Zimmerman had undergone teach him to fire more than one bullet if he had to stop an attacker?  What do you think the prosecution would harp on if they could cross examine Zimmerman about the fight and shot?

I think GZ said the attack stopped once he fired.  I believe his description of what TM did probably wasn't what he expected if he had just shot someone and thought maybe TM stopped because he knew GZ had control of the gun.  I don't think he said it took more than a couple of seconds to realize he actually had shot TM.  I don't find it compelling evidence for or against a SD shooting, just kinda neutral.

I don't think the prosecution is going to attack whether or not the shooting was in self defense because I think evidence is clearly in GZ's favor that he shot in self defense (yes, I think murder 2 is out the door).  I think they are going to attack whether using deadly force was justified which I think could get them a manslaughter charge.   To do so, I think they will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't GZ screams captured on the 911 call.  I am not sure how they accomplish that.

NNM reminds me of another piece of testimony that has me believing GZ wasn't parked at the clubhouse while talking to the dispatcher.  GZ is clear in his interviews and the walk thru about TM passing him while parked at the clubhouse, then disappearing.   There isn't any part of the conversation on the NEN recording that would fit this event happening during that call.  I'm not sure if GZ is observing TM from the beginning of the NEN recording. Its quite possible his first description is of what he has seen TM doing and not a real time observance.  When the dispatcher asks what TM was wearing, GZ gives a description it sounds like its a recollection of what TM was wearing and not what he was looking directly at and then says, "He was just staring".  I don't know for sure whether TM was in GZ's view at this time, but I think just looking at the NEN doesn't tell us for sure, until the point GZ says, "now he's just staring at me".  GZ has visual contact with TM from that point, until he takes off down the dog walk toward the back entrance.

Again, my personal opinion is that GZ is at the clubhouse and TM is disappearing around the corner about the time the NEN recording begins.  I think GZ has pulled out of the clubhouse since he says the "best address I can give you [is the clubhouse]" and is in the process of moving from that area and onto TTL.  I'm guessing he is driving slowly to try and see where TM is.  I think he sees TM after he makes his left on TTL, follows slowly in his car, then stops at some point, which is when the, "he's coming to check me out" and "he's got his hand in his waist band" comments occur.

 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 08, 2013, 07:42:22 AM
Would the firearms training Zimmerman had undergone teach him to fire more than one bullet if he had to stop an attacker?  What do you think the prosecution would harp on if they could cross examine Zimmerman about the fight and shot?
Re the first sentence... No that would be a tacit understanding not an explicit training point. The self defense training would be more concerned with a center mass shot, the easiest point of reference to remember.

I think BDLR will exaggerate GZ statement that he "aimed" the weapon... He will use the words from the CVSA test to infer GZ could withdraw rather than fire the weapon. I don't believe it possible but I do believe BDLR will argue such
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 08, 2013, 08:47:53 AM
Dale Gilbreath and Bernie de la Rionda have both stated in court that Zimmerman's description of the beating he took is inconsistent with his actual injuries.  It seems likely that the prosecution would do a vigorous cross examination on this point.  Which of Zimmerman's statements give them the biggest opening?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 08, 2013, 04:07:50 PM
Would the firearms training Zimmerman had undergone teach him to fire more than one bullet if he had to stop an attacker?

How would it matter if it did?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 08, 2013, 04:30:08 PM
Would the firearms training Zimmerman had undergone teach him to fire more than one bullet if he had to stop an attacker?

I think I get it. If Zimmerman was trained to fire twice to 'stop an attacker', his firing only once would suggest Martin wasn't an attacker?

Seems weak to me. I think he would shoot as he was trained, or not. Whether he was trying to stop an attack, stop an escape, or murder in cold blood, I doubt would make the difference. Either way he would want to be sure of success. If he thought of it, he would want it to look like self-defense.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 08, 2013, 07:31:19 PM
Has a prosecutor ever argued a defendant was guilty of murder because he didn't fire more shots?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 08, 2013, 07:37:12 PM
It won't be a direct connection.  The prosecutor will argue in this case that the defendant lied about everything so saying he shot in self defense must also be false.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 08, 2013, 07:43:47 PM
Would the firearms training Zimmerman had undergone teach him to fire more than one bullet if he had to stop an attacker?

No that would be a tacit understanding not an explicit training point.

I think it would depend on who did the training. I recall reading at least one book on the subject that recommended firing a second shot immediately after the first.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 08, 2013, 08:03:39 PM
The prosecutor will argue in this case that the defendant lied about everything so saying he shot in self defense must also be false.

What lie?

If Zimmerman was trained to double-tap, and followed the training, he would fire the second shot before even thinking about whether the first one hit. But you're suggesting such training would be evidence that he lied about thinking he missed? I don't follow.

On the larger point, I don't think the prosecution will argue such a crude non sequitur. The defense will probably caricature it that way, and certainly many of Zimmerman's supporters will. The argument will be that whenever the judge/jury is convinced that Zimmerman lied about something relevant, that is evidence suggesting consciousness of guilt.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 08, 2013, 08:23:50 PM
They could argue that if he was really desperately getting a shot off, his training would make him fire at least twice.  Since he only got one off, it means he carefully aimed and knew very well he wouldn't miss.  Thus his story that he thought he missed was a lie.  You think they have something better?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on January 08, 2013, 08:41:06 PM
They could argue that if he was really desperately getting a shot off, his training would make him fire at least twice.  Since he only got one off, it means he carefully aimed and knew very well he wouldn't miss.  Thus his story that he thought he missed was a lie.  You think they have something better?

You say that if he were firing in self-defense, he'd fire twice. Under what circumstances do you think he'd only fire once?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 09, 2013, 12:13:05 PM
Do we know what actual training he had? A big part of the anti-George stuff that was going on, at least early, was that he was totally untrained. We know he went to a range, and we know he went out in the woods with his buddy, deppity dawg there...but I don't believe he had actual training. Nothing like Ayoob's LFI-1, say.

Of course the main problem is...why assume he'd fire at least twice? Most untrained people fire once and if the threat stops (however it stops) they don't fire again. This leads to some (like one of my cousins, former chief of police) actually advising people to empty their gun at the threat or in the threat's direction, so that people like RJ can't come along later and say "see--they weren't really scared, they only shot once!"

But if you're not terribly used to shooting and being in stressful situations (Ayoob actually has a course called "Stress Fire", where you shoot over and over and over, until you're about on the edge of breaking down from fatigue and the constant noise and pressure. Then you shoot more. Theory is that you learn how to deal with the stress as best you can.), sometimes once is enough.

So you're GZ. It's dark, you feel like you're losing consciousness, like you can't breathe, you fire once...it's really loud (no ear protection in a gun fight...did he ever practice that? An handgun of any type is ungodly loud...even little mouse guns are loud)...there's a big flash that could blind you ...now what?

Oh heck, I better spray out about 6 more rounds so RickyJim doesn't accuse me of not being scared.

Yeah. Whatever.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 09, 2013, 12:15:43 PM
They could argue that if he was really desperately getting a shot off, his training would make him fire at least twice.  Since he only got one off, it means he carefully aimed and knew very well he wouldn't miss.  Thus his story that he thought he missed was a lie.  You think they have something better?

Was GZ trained say in the military, police or some other career that required use of a firearm?  If he wasn't, then I would suggest ITs probably pretty far fetched to assume that the average Joe would react a certain way to a live situation he's never been in before just because some self defense course told him he should shoot at least twice if defending himself.  The prosecution is going to throw out a number of what ifs, but I wouldn't see this one holding much weight.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 09, 2013, 01:42:18 PM
If Zimmerman had fired twice, that would be called evidence of guilt. Why would he need two shots to defend himself against an unarmed kid? He must have wanted to make sure he killed his victim. And on, and on.

We've already seen that in the 'confronting' issue. Crump said over and over that Zimmerman was guilty because he 'confronted' Martin. Then it turned out Serino's argument was that Zimmerman didn't confront Martin.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 09, 2013, 01:58:50 PM
Since he only got one off, it means he carefully aimed and knew very well he wouldn't miss. 

The idea behind double-tapping is extra stopping power. The second shot is fired immediately, at the same aim point. If the first shot misses, the second probably will too.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: jeanmarc8 on January 09, 2013, 06:11:22 PM
Oh heck, I better spray out about 6 more rounds so RickyJim doesn't accuse me of not being scared.

Yeah. Whatever.


Two in the chest, one in the head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 09, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
annoyedbeyond and jeanmarc8, if serious posts discussing possible attacks by the prosecution on the defense case bother you, then don't read this thread.  I am sure my posts are much more useful to Zimmerman's defense than the ones you write. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 09, 2013, 09:20:34 PM
Two in the chest, one in the head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill

The wikipedia article itself notes that the information is unsourced.

I believe this:
Quote
It is important to note that in the heat of such an encounter, all but the most well-trained shooters will be unlikely to score such a precise head-shot. For the vast majority of people the point of aim should remain the torso.

I've heard of the Mozambique Drill once before, on a fictional TV show. It was represented as being a special forces technique.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 10, 2013, 01:24:28 AM
Do we know what actual training he had?

It looks like Mark Osterman told FDLE that he himself taught Zimmerman to shoot (p. 77 of the July 12 release, (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf) the 284 page pdf).

Quote
[Redacted] advised that one of the things they did as friends was to go shooting. [Redacted] taught Zimmerman how to shoot. [Redacted] and Zimmerman would go shooting about once a month. They would usually go to Gander Mountain shooting range or in the woods behind [redacted] house in [redacted] They would usually shoot between 200-300 rounds.

There's a bit more, about 'weapon retention' and how Zimmerman's shooting improved over time, but nothing on what Zimmerman was taught about shooting techniques.

To qualify for CCW in Florida:
Quote
You must be able to provide a CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION from a firearms training class or other acceptable training document that evidences your competency with a firearm.

Application Instructions, (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FORMS/ConcealedWeaponLicenseApplicationInstructions.pdf) p. 2.

I don't recall seeing anything in the discovery on how Zimmerman met this requirement.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 10, 2013, 07:34:09 AM
<snip>
To qualify for CCW in Florida:
Application Instructions, (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FORMS/ConcealedWeaponLicenseApplicationInstructions.pdf) p. 2.

I don't recall seeing anything in the discovery on how Zimmerman met this requirement.
I dont have the pg number but I am sure it was at Shoot Straight he did take the requisite CCW course.
CCW (http://www.shoot-straight.com/pages.aspx?DN=84c32891-28ab-4aa2-8365-5223222d7aaf)

found it before posting!! pg.126 of 284
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 10, 2013, 06:21:12 PM

I dont have the pg number but I am sure it was at Shoot Straight he did take the requisite CCW course.
CCW (http://www.shoot-straight.com/pages.aspx?DN=84c32891-28ab-4aa2-8365-5223222d7aaf)

found it before posting!! pg.126 of 284

Thanks. I was still looking for that.

I found two other documents related to that course, but unlike p. 126 they don't make clear that this was the CCW qualifying course.

P. 126 is an FBI interview with an employee of the school, name and position redacted, who said he never met Zimmerman but confirmed he took the course.

The FDLE interviewed the course instructor (p. 86), and did a background check on him (p. 85).

The class was six hours, and it seems Zimmerman did it in one day, on 11/7/2009. Zimmerman's certificate is dated on the same day.

None of these documents provide information on the content of the course. In all of them the name of the school is redacted.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 11, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
Thanks.

So a basic course, 3.5 hours, plus whatever he might've gotten from Deppity Dawg...who seems a little sketchy. Aghast says it's 6 hours, when I read his link I saw 3.5, obviously I'm confused about something, but it's still not a lot of actual training time.

That's not a lot of time to reinforce those shootin' habits RJ thinks he should've had.

Contrast that with Ayoob's LFI-1, that takes 40 hours of classroom/range time (40% being spent on the range, the rest in a classroom setting, lectures, video presentation etc).

I've spent quite a bit of time watching people on the police course, watching IDPA matches and even shooting alongside some DEA and other alphabet agents. To be able to have the presence of mind and self control to do what RJ wants GZ to do requires a ton--literally, a ton (a metric ton even) of training. Not a few hours on a Saturday afternoon.

Sorry RJ. That's facts, nothing to do with helping GZ or not (and get over yourself--you're not on the defense team--none of us here are).



Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 11, 2013, 06:20:54 PM
Aghast says it's 6 hours, when I read his link I saw 3.5

I said 6 hours, from the discovery documents (126/284). That's the class Zimmerman completed in 2009.

As I said, the name of the school is redacted. I don't know if AIF has the right school or not.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on January 11, 2013, 06:43:54 PM
I said 6 hours, from the discovery documents (126/284). That's the class Zimmerman completed in 2009.

As I said, the name of the school is redacted. I don't know if AIF has the right school or not.

The school was Brantly & Associates, as can be seen in on page 10 of the unredacted (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/state5thattachment.pdf) reports.

Page 23 shows the course was 6 hours.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 13, 2013, 09:02:25 PM
That's not a lot of time to reinforce those shootin' habits RJ thinks he should've had.

Not a lot. But 200 rounds or more, roughly once a month, sounds like enough to establish some habits. How does that compare with the minimum requirements of a typical police department?

I agree that the six hour class is irrelevant. Zimmerman took it to qualify for a permit, not necessarily because he thought that school had the best combat shooting tips.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on January 14, 2013, 12:30:02 AM
Not a lot. But 200 rounds or more, roughly once a month, sounds like enough to establish some habits.

Was he practicing aiming and shooting at a target, or was he practicing the Mozambique Drill?

The main problem with all this "shooting habit" stuff is what I mentioned previously: if Zimmerman had ingrained in him to double-tap in self-defense situations, wouldn't he also double-tap in other situations? The failure to fire twice isn't evidence it wasn't self defense; it's evidence he didn't have that shooting habit ingrained in him.

Even if it were a valid point -- which it isn't -- I just can't imagine a prosecutor arguing to a jury that the defendant's guilty because he didn't put enough slugs in the victim.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 14, 2013, 01:32:09 AM
Was he practicing aiming and shooting at a target, or was he practicing the Mozambique Drill?

Wouldn't the Mozambique Drill be practiced by shooting at a human silhouette target?

The FDLE didn't ask Osterman what tactics he and Zimmerman were practicing (77/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)). [ETA: I should say, rather, that if they did it isn't mentioned in the summary.]

Has the SAO even talked to Osterman? I don't think there is an SAO interview summary for him in 284.

Osterman isn't a credible witness. In the O. J. Simpson case, the prosecutors wouldn't call anyone who had profited from their story, by writing a book or giving a paid interview. Osterman's interest would be to say things that make him important to the case, getting media attention for himself and thus his book.

But if Zimmerman and Osterman were practicing double-tapping, they would probably have told someone. I think such statements would be admissible to corroborate Osterman.

What about Shellie? Did she and George ever shoot together? Would spousal privilege apply to what he told her about his shooting habits, or to what she personally witnessed in that regard?

Bottom line, we still don't know if it's true, but if it is true, and the prosecution wants to establish it, I think they probably can.

So far, though, I haven't seen any sign the prosecution is interested.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 14, 2013, 08:51:48 AM
I just can't imagine a prosecutor arguing to a jury that the defendant's guilty because he didn't put enough slugs in the victim.
I would think they would use it indirectly -- part of an argument that Zimmerman lied about everything, so his self defense claim should be dismissed.  The fact that Zimmerman was able to get off a perfectly placed single shot to the heart will be claimed to be in conflict with Zimmerman's saying that the shot was a desperate response to Martin's going for the gun and that he didn't know if he had even hit Martin.  If they also have information that Zimmerman was trained to fire multiple shots in situations that could be considered to be similar to the one he was in, they will use that too.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 14, 2013, 09:05:53 AM
Make that - situations that could be considered to be similar to the one he claimed he was in.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 14, 2013, 09:38:36 AM
I said 6 hours, from the discovery documents (126/284). That's the class Zimmerman completed in 2009.

As I said, the name of the school is redacted. I don't know if AIF has the right school or not.

Okay, you said.

I shoulda known... ;D ;D

Thanks for the correction. Way too many differing "facts" floating around here.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 14, 2013, 09:42:06 AM
Not a lot. But 200 rounds or more, roughly once a month, sounds like enough to establish some habits. How does that compare with the minimum requirements of a typical police department?

I agree that the six hour class is irrelevant. Zimmerman took it to qualify for a permit, not necessarily because he thought that school had the best combat shooting tips.

Not really. In heavy training I've shot that many rounds a day (or 2-3x that). A couple hundred rounds, especially if it's just buddies out shooting in the countryside (like what Deppity Dawg described) isn't really instructive of anything other than wasting powder.

Kind of like MJW said.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 14, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
I would think they would use it indirectly -- part of an argument that Zimmerman lied about everything, so his self defense claim should be dismissed.  The fact that Zimmerman was able to get off a perfectly placed single shot to the heart will be claimed to be in conflict with Zimmerman's saying that the shot was a desperate response to Martin's going for the gun and that he didn't know if he had even hit Martin.  If they also have information that Zimmerman was trained to fire multiple shots in situations that could be considered to be similar to the one he was in, they will use that too.

No, no, no.
I'm not certain who's intelligence you're insulting here, your own or ours, but cripes.

When talking of a fairly large organ (the size of your two fists together, more or less) located in the center of a persons chest (again, more or less)...

Now, if GZ had put the bullet squarely between Trayvon's eyes, or had he even shot the Arizona can out of his hand the way they used to do in all the old black hat white hat westerns...I'd be right square on board with you.

But a center mass shot?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 14, 2013, 11:16:22 AM
I would think they would use it indirectly -- part of an argument that Zimmerman lied about everything, so his self defense claim should be dismissed.  The fact that Zimmerman was able to get off a perfectly placed single shot to the heart will be claimed to be in conflict with Zimmerman's saying that the shot was a desperate response to Martin's going for the gun and that he didn't know if he had even hit Martin.  If they also have information that Zimmerman was trained to fire multiple shots in situations that could be considered to be similar to the one he was in, they will use that too.

I don't see how they could argue that GZ lied about everything because the NEN, witness statements and injuries suffered do back up many of his statements.   I think there are inconsistencies in his statements that certainly will be attacked, but attacking him for only shooting once or being able to hit a guy in the chest who was straddled on top of him from point blank range is not likely to be very successful. 

They are going to attack whether he feared great bodily harm before shooting and whether he illegally confronted TM.  Even if they discredit all of GZ's statements on those points, I'm not sure how they get there unless some witness statements change.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 15, 2013, 09:53:19 AM
Make that - situations that could be considered to be similar to the one he claimed he was in.

Except there are witness statements and other evidence to back up the position he was in. Stop showing your bias while hollering at (almost) everyone else for having some.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 15, 2013, 08:35:47 PM
Except there are witness statements and other evidence to back up the position he was in.

Only partially.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 15, 2013, 11:17:12 PM
Only partially.

Take away everything.  Witnesses, statements from Zimmerman, the yells for help and any knowledge you may have of either individuals... 

Clean the slate. 

And you would still have a winnable self-defense case, IMO.

Reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death can be established by the wounds that Zimmerman had.  All are centered on his head.  Not one sign of any defensive wounds or bruising to his arms, hands or torso.  No real signs of any defensive wounds on Martin either, save the abrasion.

List all of the spots in the area immediate to the body that could have caused those injuries to Zimmerman.  You have a cement sidewalk.  The cement utility covers.  Martin's fist and/or open palm.  And grass.

And you have a roughly 4 minute time period where Martin is gone from Zimmerman's view yet manages to find himself back at virtually the same area from where he disappeared earlier.  Then an altercation ensues.

He either doubled back, laid in wait or some combination of both.  Until there is a reasonable explanation for that to occur I will always believe that Zimmerman will come out with a positive result in a court of law.

There is INTENT on Martin's behalf to still be in or returning to that area.

Just IMO. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 16, 2013, 03:48:52 AM
He either doubled back, laid in wait or some combination of both.

He doubled back or stopped. Stopping isn't necessarily lying in wait. That's a very loaded expression.

Quote
Until there is a reasonable explanation for that

There is an explanation for that, which was discussed (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg104615.html#msg104615) earlier in this thread. If you don't consider it reasonable, I don't think you have explained why.

I don't think the prosecution will go with that explanation. As mentioned in the earlier discussion, it's not consistent with Dee Dee's story of Martin fearing Zimmerman and trying to avoid him.

Unless they come up with new evidence, such as Dee Dee embellishing (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg104784.html#msg104784) her story, I think the prosecution's best move would be to admit that they can't explain why Martin returned to the T.

What I think they can do instead, is to argue that whatever the reason was, it had to be an innocent one. Martin failed to make clear to Dee Dee exactly what he did or where he went during the 'couple of minutes'. But at the end of the COM, Martin saw Zimmerman behind him, and tried to get away from him. That will be the evidence that Martin wasn't seeking out Zimmerman during the COM, and so must have been doing something else, something innocent.

Listening to the most recently available recording (http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/78-11th-supplemental-discovery) of the Crump interview, it seems the COM didn't get an explicit mention.

Part 3 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA3_red.mp3)
Quote
Trayvon had run for it. And then the man, and then, he say he lost the man. And then the man come, the man, Trayvon say, the man still was following him.

The COM was supposed to be between Martin saying he lost the man, and the next time Martin said the man was following him. I wonder if the COM was added because someone checked the first story against the timeline. It might be just that Dee Dee was more relaxed and reflective in the later interview.

The prosecution has to hope Dee Dee appeals to the jury. If the jury likes Dee Dee, they will buy her dramatic story of Zimmerman bearing down on Martin. They will buy the prosecution's excuses for the holes in her story, or make their own excuses, just as Zimmerman's partisans make excuses for the holes in his story. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 16, 2013, 08:12:50 AM
He doubled back or stopped. Stopping isn't necessarily lying in wait. That's a very loaded expression.

There is an explanation for that, which was discussed (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg104615.html#msg104615) earlier in this thread. If you don't consider it reasonable, I don't think you have explained why.

IF we had no other evidence, just stopping might be a reasonable possibility.  Dee Dee doesn't have TM just stopping (she says he ran) and GZ who walks up to the T and doesn't see TM would also contradict the theory that TM just stopped.

Quote
"Martin failed to make clear to Dee Dee exactly what he did or where he went during the 'couple of minutes'. "

Dee Dee leaves out a lot of details from the time TM ran to the time he and GZ meet face to face.  She does make it clear he ran and lost the man and that he ran far enough to be out of breath.  I don't buy her story, but she does have one and I don't think the prosecution can just ignore it if they plan to use her on the stand.

Quote
"The prosecution has to hope Dee Dee appeals to the jury. If the jury likes Dee Dee, they will buy her dramatic story of Zimmerman bearing down on Martin. They will buy the prosecution's excuses for the holes in her story, or make their own excuses, just as Zimmerman's partisans make excuses for the holes in his story. "

Agreed that the prosecution's case is Dee Dee and they probably need her to change her story from their depo.  Her story at the BDLR depo doesn't have GZ bearing down on TM.  IT has TM losing GZ, being by his house, refusing to run, then eventually GZ following him again before TM confronts him verbally.  I don't see how any jury would buy that the overweight GZ in jeans and boots could catch and corner the young and spry TM in sweats and sneakers unless it was at TM's choosing.  Whether a jury will ignore her inconsistencies and use GZ's to discredit him is anyone's guess, but I think the defense's lawyers are too skilled to let that happen (plus they'd have to get it past a judge first, not just a jury).  Almost all of the non Dee Dee/GZ testimony seems to be in GZ's favor.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 16, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
Suppose it turns out that the cops never verified that Zimmerman's Ridgeline was parked near the cut through so it remains a possibility it was at the clubhouse all the time.  Is the scenario of Zimmerman chasing Martin from the clubhouse to the T on foot (puff pant  ;D) consistent with DeeDee's account?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 16, 2013, 09:10:33 AM
Suppose it turns out that the cops never verified that Zimmerman's Ridgeline was parked near the cut through so it remains a possibility it was at the clubhouse all the time.  Is the scenario of Zimmerman chasing Martin from the clubhouse to the T on foot (puff pant  ;D) consistent with DeeDee's account?

They ran tags.  Zimmerman's truck was one of the ones they ran.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 16, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
IF we had no other evidence, just stopping might be a reasonable possibility.  Dee Dee doesn't have TM just stopping (she says he ran) and GZ who walks up to the T and doesn't see TM would also contradict the theory that TM just stopped.

Dee Dee leaves out a lot of details from the time TM ran to the time he and GZ meet face to face.  She does make it clear he ran and lost the man and that he ran far enough to be out of breath.  I don't buy her story, but she does have one and I don't think the prosecution can just ignore it if they plan to use her on the stand.

Agreed that the prosecution's case is Dee Dee and they probably need her to change her story from their depo.  Her story at the BDLR depo doesn't have GZ bearing down on TM.  IT has TM losing GZ, being by his house, refusing to run, then eventually GZ following him again before TM confronts him verbally.  I don't see how any jury would buy that the overweight GZ in jeans and boots could catch and corner the young and spry TM in sweats and sneakers unless it was at TM's choosing.  Whether a jury will ignore her inconsistencies and use GZ's to discredit him is anyone's guess, but I think the defense's lawyers are too skilled to let that happen (plus they'd have to get it past a judge first, not just a jury).  Almost all of the non Dee Dee/GZ testimony seems to be in GZ's favor.

How does she change her story from the deposition without getting impeached?  What I would like to see is more detail as to what TM was doing during those missing couple of minutes.  I would think that MOM will center on that during deposition.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 16, 2013, 09:32:22 AM
He doubled back or stopped. Stopping isn't necessarily lying in wait. That's a very loaded expression.

There is an explanation for that, which was discussed (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg104615.html#msg104615) earlier in this thread. If you don't consider it reasonable, I don't think you have explained why.

I don't think the prosecution will go with that explanation. As mentioned in the earlier discussion, it's not consistent with Dee Dee's story of Martin fearing Zimmerman and trying to avoid him.

Unless they come up with new evidence, such as Dee Dee embellishing (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.msg104784.html#msg104784) her story, I think the prosecution's best move would be to admit that they can't explain why Martin returned to the T.

What I think they can do instead, is to argue that whatever the reason was, it had to be an innocent one. Martin failed to make clear to Dee Dee exactly what he did or where he went during the 'couple of minutes'. But at the end of the COM, Martin saw Zimmerman behind him, and tried to get away from him. That will be the evidence that Martin wasn't seeking out Zimmerman during the COM, and so must have been doing something else, something innocent.

Listening to the most recently available recording (http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/78-11th-supplemental-discovery) of the Crump interview, it seems the COM didn't get an explicit mention.

Part 3 (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/w8_interview/w8_recordingA3_red.mp3)
The COM was supposed to be between Martin saying he lost the man, and the next time Martin said the man was following him. I wonder if the COM was added because someone checked the first story against the timeline. It might be just that Dee Dee was more relaxed and reflective in the later interview.

The prosecution has to hope Dee Dee appeals to the jury. If the jury likes Dee Dee, they will buy her dramatic story of Zimmerman bearing down on Martin. They will buy the prosecution's excuses for the holes in her story, or make their own excuses, just as Zimmerman's partisans make excuses for the holes in his story.

Laying is wait is how I would describe it, loaded or not.  Zimmerman had already passed through the "T" en route to RVC.  He didn't see anything and passed safely through.  Does anyone think that he didn't cast the light from the flashlight down the sidewalk?  So Martin was there and in hiding or perhaps saw the movement of light from the flashlight as Zimmerman was returning and went into hiding.  W8 says Martin's voice got low.

On the return trip he has the verbal encounter with Martin which led to what best can be described as a very one sided fight.

I didn't see anything on the link you provided that could reasonably explain why Martin returned to the "T."   

And personally, I believe it was a combination of both.  I don't ascribe to the "Thug" theory.  But I don't know that he wasn't goaded into going back or if he was just PO'd about the whole thing.  W8 said he was scared.  I don't believe he was scared because he had lost GZ and could have simply returned to the Green TH.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 16, 2013, 09:42:42 AM
They ran tags.  Zimmerman's truck was one of the ones they ran.

I think that was recently discussed here and it turned out there is nothing in the discovery that shows they ran the plates from the Ridgeline. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 16, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
She does make it clear he ran and lost the man and that he ran far enough to be out of breath. 

She said he was breathing hard. That this is a measure of how far he ran, is your speculation.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 16, 2013, 10:16:17 AM
She said he was breathing hard. That this is a measure of how far he ran, is your speculation.
".... I told him ‘RUN!’ And then, and then… I tol’ him ‘Keep runnin’.’ He not goin’ run. And then he
say…I told him, ‘Why you not runnin’? He say, ‘I’m not go’ run,’ cause he tired, but I know he
tired."

she never mentioned prior to that point TM was tired, so was it past nap time?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 16, 2013, 10:23:09 AM
".... I told him ‘RUN!’ And then, and then… I tol’ him ‘Keep runnin’.’ He not goin’ run. And then he
say…I told him, ‘Why you not runnin’? He say, ‘I’m not go’ run,’ cause he tired, but I know he
tired."

Your ellipses have chopped out the 'couple of minutes', during which Dee Dee didn't say if Martin was running, walking, stopping, or some combination.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: AghastInFL on January 16, 2013, 10:31:03 AM
I only sniped the early part of the reply, other elipsis are part of the transcript:

Dee Dee: So, and in a couple minutes…he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him. And I
say, ‘RUN!’ You goin’ to run? He say he not goin’ run cause…I could have known he not going
to run, cause he out of breath. and then, he told me, he say this guy getting’ close to him. I told
him ‘RUN!’ And then, and then… I tol’ him ‘Keep runnin’.’ He not goin’ run. And then he
say…I told him, ‘Why you not runnin’? He say, ‘I’m not go’ run,’ cause he tired, but I know he
tired.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 16, 2013, 11:10:55 AM
She said he was breathing hard. That this is a measure of how far he ran, is your speculation.

How far TM went from the T is speculation no matter what your opinion on the matter is.  We don't know for certain whether he sprinted, jogged, skipped, or whatever and for how long.  Dee Dee's statement is that he ran, and that he ran far enough to lose the man, "started walking back" and that he was still out of breath roughly 4 minutes later.  If her statement is to believed at all, the distance covered would have to be more than 30-50 feet.  Again, I don't believe her story, but if the prosecution plans to use her as a witness, I don't see how they can suggest TM went around the corner 30 feet and stopped somewhere for 4 minutes (hiding presumably?) until he saw GZ behind him again. 

This is one area Dee Dee has helped the defense.  She takes away the possibility that TM cowered somewhere in hiding or was being chased around by GZ as she has him running, losing GZ and walking somewhere without GZ being around.   This is also supported by GZ's NEN call.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 16, 2013, 11:22:49 AM
Suppose it turns out that the cops never verified that Zimmerman's Ridgeline was parked near the cut through so it remains a possibility it was at the clubhouse all the time.  Is the scenario of Zimmerman chasing Martin from the clubhouse to the T on foot (puff pant  ;D) consistent with DeeDee's account?

Ok, lets assume the cops have no idea where GZ was parked.  What does the evidence say?  GZ describes how to get to his SUV by saying take a left at the clubhouse, modified by go past the clubhouse and mailboxes and take a left.  Does this not put his SUV somewhere on TTL? 

Doesn't Dee Dee describe TM being at the mail kiosk and seeing GZ in his vehicle looking at him?  Could GZ be parked in front of the clubhouse and observe TM under the mail kiosk?  Dee Dee then says TM starts walking with his hood up  and that GZ is following behind.  Is there any indication that at this point, TM was walking anywhere other than towards BG's place (ie, he wasn't crossing in front of the clubhouse from the mail kiosk to get home).

Without a picture of where the vehicle is located, we can't know for sure where it was parked (even then you could argue someone moved it before the photo was taken).  I don't see any evidence to suggest GZ's vehicle was anywhere other than on TTL when he exited to follow on foot.  Playing any possible scenario to a jury in court might work at times as a defense strategy, its a sure loser if you are the prosecution trying to overcome reasonable doubt.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 16, 2013, 12:47:22 PM
Leftwig, saying the "chase" was on foot, starting from the clubhouse, helps the prosecution overcome, somewhat, the timeline gap.  There seems to be less of a problem, in this scenario, of explaining what Martin was doing in the three to four minutes between "sh*t, he's running" and the start of hostilities at the T.  However it makes Zimmerman unbelievably crazy by getting out of his car when instead he could have followed right behind Martin while in it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 16, 2013, 01:03:48 PM
Does anyone think that he didn't cast the light from the flashlight down the sidewalk? 

Zimmerman said the flashlight was dead.

In his SPD interviews, Zimmerman never mentioned the key-chain flashlight. It was found lit, so he must have begun using it at some point. We don't know when.   
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 16, 2013, 01:10:14 PM
Leftwig, saying the "chase" was on foot, starting from the clubhouse, helps the prosecution overcome, somewhat, the timeline gap.  There seems to be less of a problem, in this scenario, of explaining what Martin was doing in the three to four minutes between "sh*t, he's running" and the start of hostilities at the T.  However it makes Zimmerman unbelievably crazy by getting out of his car when instead he could have followed right behind Martin while in it.

My response wasn't to how it might make GZ look if he were indeed parked at the clubhouse when he exited.  My response was that even without GZ's statement about where he parked on TTL, there is other evidence that indicates thats where he was.  On the NEN call GZ describes it being parked on TTL and Dee Dee describes GZ following TM in his vehicle, presumably as he is walking from the mail kiosk towards BG's place (ie, down TTL).  What evidence does the prosecution have to dispute this and/or place GZ's vehicle remaining at the clubhouse? 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 02:17:39 AM
They ran tags.  Zimmerman's truck was one of the ones they ran.

I think that was recently discussed here and it turned out there is nothing in the discovery that shows they ran the plates from the Ridgeline.

On the Honda colors (white, grey), I don't know if it was one or two vehicles but a plate was run and the owner was Zimmerman. I forget what page but his truck was there and photographed.

This poster came and went after a few days. No one found the record he said he had seen.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 06:06:22 AM
Her story at the BDLR depo doesn't have GZ bearing down on TM. 

I'm talking about part of the de la Rionda interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) (9:22-10:39) during which de la Rionda interrupted Dee Dee's narrative to ask some questions. He asked how Dee Dee could tell that Martin was tired, whether it was raining, and whether Dee Dee was yelling at Martin.

If we chop out the questions and Dee Dee's answers, to get a connected narrative, we get this:

Quote
Dee Dee: And in a couple of minutes, he say the man following him again. He behind him. And I say, "Run! [unintelligible] You gonna run? He say he not gonna run, because, I could've known he not gonna run, because he out of breath. And then, he come and say the guy getting close to him. I tell him, "Run!" And then he, and then, I told him, "Keep running." He not gonna run. And then he say, I told him, "Why you not running?" He said, "I'm not gonna run." Because he tired, God, I know he tired. . . . And then, he tell me this guy was getting close, like. And, he tell me the guy was getting real close to him. Next I hear, "What are you following me for?"

Zimmerman was 'getting close', and then 'getting close, like . . . getting real close'. I think 'bearing down' is exactly the right phrase for expressing this briefly.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 06:45:47 AM
I don't see how any jury would buy that the overweight GZ in jeans and boots could catch and corner the young and spry TM in sweats and sneakers unless it was at TM's choosing.

I've never heard a recording of Dee Dee saying 'cornered'. That was Gutman's paraphrase.

Evidence that Martin was 'spry'?

He wasn't doing football that year, or any other sport that I have heard of. Do we know he hadn't taken up smoking something legal?

The autopsy report (128/184 (http://www.axiomamnesia.com/TrayvonMartinFiles/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-FULL-case-report-documents.pdf)) shows 'focal mild anthracosis', a condition associated with smoke inhalation. (http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/a/anthracosis/intro.htm)

Martin had been on his feet for an hour or so, much of it walking. We don't know what he had been doing earlier in the day.

Again, it comes down to whether Dee Dee wins over the sympathies of the jurors. If she does, they may well give her the benefit of the doubt that Martin was too tired to run from Zimmerman.

ETA: There is no necessary correlation between stamina and build. I was always skinny as a teenager, but I wasn't always in good shape. Conversely, I would think an overweight person by exercising would improve their stamina before shedding all the excess weight. That might well be true of Zimmerman, who was even heavier in the past.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 17, 2013, 07:09:30 AM
I'm talking about part of the de la Rionda interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) (9:22-10:39) during which de la Rionda interrupted Dee Dee's narrative to ask some questions. He asked how Dee Dee could tell that Martin was tired, whether it was raining, and whether Dee Dee was yelling at Martin.

If we chop out the questions and Dee Dee's answers, to get a connected narrative, we get this:

Zimmerman was 'getting close', and then 'getting close, like . . . getting real close'. I think 'bearing down' is exactly the right phrase for expressing this briefly.

We don't  know whether GZ saw TM as she was telling him to run.  Maybe its just me, but I have a difficult time believing that the pudgy GZ in jeans and boots would have the capability of "bearing down" on the young athletic TM wearing sweats and sneakers.  Bearing down is your interpretation.  I find that interpretation not to be very plausible.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 07:14:19 AM
Maybe its just me, but I have a difficult time believing that the pudgy GZ in jeans and boots would have the capability of "bearing down" on the young athletic TM wearing sweats and sneakers.

Still awaiting evidence Martin was athletic at this time.

I've worn boots and jeans a lot, and it has not been my experience that they restrict locomotion.

Some have suggested Martin was wearing baggy pants that did restrict his locomotion.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 17, 2013, 08:17:26 AM
I've never heard a recording of Dee Dee saying 'cornered'. That was Gutman's paraphrase.

Evidence that Martin was 'spry'?

He wasn't doing football that year, or any other sport that I have heard of. Do we know he hadn't taken up smoking something legal?

The autopsy report (128/184 (http://www.axiomamnesia.com/TrayvonMartinFiles/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-FULL-case-report-documents.pdf)) shows 'focal mild anthracosis', a condition associated with smoke inhalation. (http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/a/anthracosis/intro.htm)

Martin had been on his feet for an hour or so, much of it walking. We don't know what he had been doing earlier in the day.

Again, it comes down to whether Dee Dee wins over the sympathies of the jurors. If she does, they may well give her the benefit of the doubt that Martin was too tired to run from Zimmerman.

ETA: There is no necessary correlation between stamina and build. I was always skinny as a teenager, but I wasn't always in good shape. Conversely, I would think an overweight person by exercising would improve their stamina before shedding all the excess weight. That might well be true of Zimmerman, who was even heavier in the past.

Martin was a 6 footish, 165 poundish teenager who has been described as athletic by his family and those that knew him.  While he hadn't played organized football in a few years, teenagers don't just lose their athleticism because they aren't playing on a team.

Agree that stamina doesn't have a body type, but stamina had little to do with TM's ability to run away from GZ to lose sight of him.  TM had walked a mile and a half and run for maybe a total of 30 seconds in the previous hour and 15 minutes.  A normal walking pace would have him to the store and back in about a half an hour.   Not being able to run because he was "too tired" is laughable when Dee Dee says it, and am shocked that you would give the idea any credibility.  I could buy that maybe he had to stop sprinting from being out of breath after 15 seconds, but not from ducking around the corner and moving 30-50 feet as some suggest.  If he sprinted far enough from the 'T' to be out of breath he would have been to BG's place or beyond.  I buy that possibility and think it has some validity given his statement to Dee Dee that when he stopped running (ain't gonna run no more), he was "right by his father's house".

Now you do bring up a possible point that he was under the influence of something at the time that prevented him from being able to run or maybe not being where he thought he was.  We still haven't seen the full tox report, so maybe he was under the influence of something that could have hindered that ability.  Not sure thats a winner of an argument for the prosecution unless it was some mediation he was prescribed to take.

In all of Dee Dee's statements, I don't once recall her saying that TM told her he wasn't going to run because he was too tired.  The too tired comments appear to be her construct.  I think its a reasonable conclusion to hear him out of breath and assume he can't continue running at that moment.  Being out of breath and too tired to run 3-4 minutes after a 10-15 second sprint doesn't seem too plausible especially since she said he "started walking back", not "stopped and caught his breath". 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 17, 2013, 08:21:00 AM
I'm talking about part of the de la Rionda interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu) (9:22-10:39) during which de la Rionda interrupted Dee Dee's narrative to ask some questions. He asked how Dee Dee could tell that Martin was tired, whether it was raining, and whether Dee Dee was yelling at Martin.

If we chop out the questions and Dee Dee's answers, to get a connected narrative, we get this:
Quote
    Dee Dee: And in a couple of minutes, he say the man following him again. He behind him. And I say, "Run! [unintelligible] You gonna run? He say he not gonna run, because, I could've known he not gonna run, because he out of breath. And then, he come and say the guy getting close to him. I tell him, "Run!" And then he, and then, I told him, "Keep running." He not gonna run. And then he say, I told him, "Why you not running?" He said, "I'm not gonna run." Because he tired, God, I know he tired. . . . And then, he tell me this guy was getting close, like. And, he tell me the guy was getting real close to him. Next I hear, "What are you following me for?"
Zimmerman was 'getting close', and then 'getting close, like . . . getting real close'. I think 'bearing down' is exactly the right phrase for expressing this briefly.

This narrative makes more sense if the context is that Zimmerman is chasing Martin on foot along TTL from the clubhouse to the cut through and then catches him at the T.  That is why I think the prosecution might try the theory that the clubhouse is the place where Zimmerman exited his car and use selective quoting from the reenactment like
Quote
And then they said, ahhh....I said he's not here, they said do you still want them to come and I said yes and they said where do you want them to com to and I said, you know what just tell him to meet me at my truck next to the clubhouse, if you go straight in through the clubhouse and makes a left I have a silver Honda Ridgeline that's parked right there, I'll meet him right there. So I started walking back (the proceed to walk back to where they came from)
to back them up.  I don't see another option for presenting a relatively reasonable theory of pursuit and capture, something that is essential to their Murder2 case.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 08:36:13 AM
In all of Dee Dee's statements, I don't once recall her saying that TM told her he wasn't going to run because he was too tired.  The too tired comments appear to be her construct.

I agree.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 17, 2013, 08:39:41 AM
Still awaiting evidence Martin was athletic at this time.

I've worn boots and jeans a lot, and it has not been my experience that they restrict locomotion.

Some have suggested Martin was wearing baggy pants that did restrict his locomotion.

Quotes from various articles:

"In dozens of interviews with family members and acquaintances, and from details available in court documents and school records, Trayvon Martin is revealed as a standout athlete with a ravenous appetite. "

"The teen also passed time listening to music, playing video games and sharing pickup basketball games with neighbors."

"Trayvon was, they say, a trusting and trustworthy kid, 'an athletic, loving, caring person,' says Martin, a Miami truck driver."

Have you seen what teenagers wear to play basketball in?  I've played with, coached and counseled teenagers for 15 or so years and everyone of them wears baggy shorts or sweats that they run up and down the basketball court in.  Suggesting that baggy sweats would slow down and individual more than jeans and boots is not a good argument to make.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 08:49:06 AM
This narrative makes more sense if the context is that Zimmerman is chasing Martin on foot along TTL from the clubhouse to the cut through and then catches him at the T.

Timeline doesn't work, unless both Martin and Zimmerman doubled back to the clubhouse area. Zimmerman was on the phone for almost two minutes after leaving the truck.

There's time for both Martin and Zimmerman to cover a lot of distance before the slow chase described by Dee Dee would have to begin. It's a speculative challenge to explain how and why each of them got to whatever their respective locations were at the start of the chase.

It hardly matters where Zimmerman left the truck.



Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 17, 2013, 08:50:46 AM
I think that was recently discussed here and it turned out there is nothing in the discovery that shows they ran the plates from the Ridgeline.


This poster came and went after a few days. No one found the record he said he had seen.

Officer Bernosky is the one that ran the tags.  The two vehicles came back to residents in the complex.  Gilbreath talked to him.  There should be something in the one of the doc dumps that goes with to this since Gilbreath had his name.  Maybe in or around the Contamination Report.  I know I read it somewhere but I don't know if my memory is being influenced.  Strong Possiblity.
Page 3 of the 284 doc dump.

I am starting to redo all of my links.  I am all the way up to about 7 of 50.  LOL. Do you have one handy for the Contamination Report?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 17, 2013, 09:28:06 AM
Zimmerman was 'getting close', and then 'getting close, like . . . getting real close'. I think 'bearing down' is exactly the right phrase for expressing this briefly.


This narrative makes more sense if the context is that Zimmerman is chasing Martin on foot along TTL from the clubhouse to the cut through and then catches him at the T.  That is why I think the prosecution might try the theory that the clubhouse is the place where Zimmerman exited his car and use selective quoting from the reenactment like  to back them up.  I don't see another option for presenting a relatively reasonable theory of pursuit and capture, something that is essential to their Murder2 case.

The most pure description of where he was parked would be obtained from the NEN.
Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

I think that clearly places his SUV on TTL.  Where on TTL is up for debate.  During the video re-enactment, he said he parked near the second bend in TTL, near the 'T'.  The driver of the vehicle slowed down and stopped short of that as GZ was describing seeing TM along the row of houses to his left.  I believe GZ said something to the affect of I stopped about here which was short of the mark he described earlier.  Which of those is most accurate?  I don't know.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 10:31:18 AM
Do you have one handy for the Contamination Report?

You mean the Contamination Log? It came up recently on the headphones/button thread. It's 48-49/284. (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 10:56:59 AM
Officer Bernosky is the one that ran the tags.  The two vehicles came back to residents in the complex.  Gilbreath talked to him.  There should be something in the one of the doc dumps that goes with to this since Gilbreath had his name.

What you're looking for may be on p. 11 of the Event Log Release. (http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/2012/09/GZ-Discovery-Redacted-0919.pdf)

My computer is still afflicted by some kind of bug that prevents opening some pdf files. That link doesn't work for me, but I hope it will for you.

See also:

I notice that entries at 20:32:59 and 20:47:15 on page 11 of the non-dna discovery PDF mention Hondas. The color in the first is given as white, and the second as gray. I wonder if one or both refer to Zimmerman's Ridgeline.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 17, 2013, 02:58:27 PM
During the video re-enactment, he said he parked near the second bend in TTL, near the 'T'.  The driver of the vehicle slowed down and stopped short of that as GZ was describing seeing TM along the row of houses to his left.  I believe GZ said something to the affect of I stopped about here which was short of the mark he described earlier. 

It seems clear to me that when Zimmerman said 'right about where that sign is', he was indicating the general area. The place Sgt. Smith parked would be Zimmerman's 'final answer'.

When Zimmerman marked a map (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630981402972/) for Singleton on 2/26, he indicated a place further west, near that bend of TTL. He then said that was a mistake, and marked almost exactly the same place as Sgt. would park the next day.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 17, 2013, 03:23:44 PM
Quotes from various articles:

"In dozens of interviews with family members and acquaintances, and from details available in court documents and school records, Trayvon Martin is revealed as a standout athlete with a ravenous appetite. "

"The teen also passed time listening to music, playing video games and sharing pickup basketball games with neighbors."

"Trayvon was, they say, a trusting and trustworthy kid, 'an athletic, loving, caring person,' says Martin, a Miami truck driver."
Seems to be Ryan Julison's work.  Just as believable as A,B student who majored in cheerfulness.  I am very surprised you buy it.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 17, 2013, 05:37:30 PM
I can believe they would have come from a predetermined narrative.  However, I don't think its that hard to believe that a kid who was into sports and was a good football player in JH was a good athlete. 

If find it much more believable that TM would have been able to run and escape a short pudgy GZ wearing jeans and boots with 100' head start than that he ran til he was out of breath than GZ caught him by walking.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 17, 2013, 05:54:31 PM
It might do some of us here a bit of good to ponder on the difference between being an athlete or being athletic.

TM was a young man, built like a UFC lightweight and an athletic build (look it up).

George Zimmerman...not so much. Not so much at all.


Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 17, 2013, 05:54:58 PM
The best refutation of DeeDee's story is that the dog path was very dark and Zimmerman's flashlight wasn't working so he never entered the region between the houses before the fight.  That can be established without Zimmerman's testimony.  Martin didn't need to run home to avoid Zimmerman.  Unlike others here, I don't think DeeDee will ever take the stand unless the prosecution figures out a way to merge her tale with the fact that it has to end up at the "T" with Zimmerman chasing Martin there during and shortly after the NEN call. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 02:32:34 AM
The best refutation of DeeDee's story is that the dog path was very dark and Zimmerman's flashlight wasn't working so he never entered the region between the houses before the fight.

Dee Dee didn't say Martin was on the dogwalk when he saw Zimmerman following him.

The walking chase could have covered a lot of ground, especially if Martin was walking fast, as Dee Dee said in the Crump interview. Dee Dee didn't say how long it took, but from the dialogue she described I have estimated 15 seconds if they barely paused between sentences. I think 30 seconds or more would be likely. The walking chase could have started a hundred yards or more from the T, in any direction.

If the walking chase did happen on the dogwalk, it would probably be because Zimmerman spotted Martin through a gap between the buildings. If there was enough light for W-18 to see the two men wrestling from her window, there was enough for Zimmerman to see a person walking up the dogwalk from either street.

I don't know that Zimmerman wouldn't have gone into the dogwalk area in search of Martin with only the key-chain flashlight. It's just a supposition that it wouldn't be strong enough for the purpose.

Zimmerman could have been on the dogwalk, and spotted Martin through the buildings on one of the streets.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 02:52:27 AM
Zimmerman's flashlight wasn't working so he never entered the region between the houses before the fight.  That can be established without Zimmerman's testimony. 

Without Zimmerman's testimony, they can establish that the flashlight wasn't working when the police found it. There is good evidence he was using the key-chain flashlight by the time the physical engagement began. It's only Zimmerman's word that he never entered the dogwalk area with a working flashlight.

Lack of a flashlight would not have been an absolute barrier to Zimmerman entering the dogwalk area. Martin went there without a flashlight. W-18 was able to see the two men from her window in the available light.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 02:55:25 AM
Martin didn't need to run home to avoid Zimmerman. 

I don't understand the point of this. I don't think anyone has claimed that the only way for Martin to 'avoid Zimmerman' was to 'run home'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: annoyedbeyond on January 18, 2013, 06:25:29 AM
I don't understand the point of this. I don't think anyone has claimed that the only way for Martin to 'avoid Zimmerman' was to 'run home'.


When other posters do it you accuse them of straw-manning. When RJ does it...you say "I don't understand [your] point...".

Why?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 18, 2013, 07:33:02 AM
I don't understand the point of this. I don't think anyone has claimed that the only way for Martin to 'avoid Zimmerman' was to 'run home'.

The point was that the posts arguing about the comparative running abilities of Martin and Zimmerman aren't particularly relevant .  More important would be if one could have beaten the other up in a fist fight.  I think I have read that Martin  and his cousin were practicing boxing the night before.  Can anybody confirm?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 18, 2013, 08:01:02 AM
Dee Dee didn't say Martin was on the dogwalk when he saw Zimmerman following him.

The walking chase could have covered a lot of ground, especially if Martin was walking fast, as Dee Dee said in the Crump interview. Dee Dee didn't say how long it took, but from the dialogue she described I have estimated 15 seconds if they barely paused between sentences. I think 30 seconds or more would be likely. The walking chase could have started a hundred yards or more from the T, in any direction.

If the walking chase did happen on the dogwalk, it would probably be because Zimmerman spotted Martin through a gap between the buildings. If there was enough light for W-18 to see the two men wrestling from her window, there was enough for Zimmerman to see a person walking up the dogwalk from either street.

I don't know that Zimmerman wouldn't have gone into the dogwalk area in search of Martin with only the key-chain flashlight. It's just a supposition that it wouldn't be strong enough for the purpose.

Zimmerman could have been on the dogwalk, and spotted Martin through the buildings on one of the streets.
Are you saying that Zimmerman, while on RVC, spotting Martin through a break between the buildings and then chasing him north to the T on the dog path, is a scenario that is consistent with DeeDee's narrative (and might rehabilitate Witness2)?  As I have said before, I can't conceive of Zimmerman running south of the cut through on TTL.  He would have driven his car.   As far as the RVC scenario, I thought DeeDee said Trayvon didn't run during the later stages of the call and I think it more likely that he would have gone home and got in through the open patio door (Esquire article?) than go to the T.  Her story and the timeline aren't a good match.  But maybe the RVC story is something the prosecution might try.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 18, 2013, 08:30:57 AM
The point was that the posts arguing about the comparative running abilities of Martin and Zimmerman aren't particularly relevant .  More important would be if one could have beaten the other up in a fist fight.  I think I have read that Martin  and his cousin were practicing boxing the night before.  Can anybody confirm?

IF the prosecution is going to argue that a pursuit and confrontation occurred against the will of TM (which is their implication in the APC), then whether GZ had the capability of chasing down and cornering TM in an open area is quite relevant.  If the prosecution gives up the notion that TM tried to avoid a confrontation and engaged willingly with GZ, then I'd agree that who is faster or in better shape doesn't matter much.

I believe it was a tweet or FB posting from the cousin that mentioned doing some boxing the night before with TM.  The cousin had posted a picture from the night before the shooting with him in a T-shirt holding some sort of "title" belt (real or fake, I don't know) and it looked like the picture was taken inside a garage.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 08:48:09 AM
Are you saying that Zimmerman, while on RVC, spotting Martin through a break between the buildings and then chasing him north to the T on the dog path, is a scenario that is consistent with DeeDee's narrative (and might rehabilitate Witness2)?

Yes, except that I didn't say anything about W-2.

Quote
I can't conceive of Zimmerman running south of the cut through on TTL.

He might have walked south on RVC, cut across the southern end of the buildings, and walked north on TTL.

Or, he might have decided to return to his truck, then changed his mind and walked south on TTL in search of Martin.

Quote
I thought DeeDee said Trayvon didn't run during the later stages of the call

That's correct. So what? I didn't say anything about Martin running.

Quote
I think it more likely that he would have gone home and got in through the open patio door (Esquire article?) than go to the T.

The evidence is that he did go to the T.

He could have gone inside the house, then out again.

Quote
Her story and the timeline aren't a good match.

The prosecution is stuck with both.

It's easier to fit Dee Dee's story to the timeline than Zimmerman's.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 08:57:20 AM
whether GZ had the capability of chasing down and cornering TM in an open area

One more time, I believe 'cornered' is Gutman's word, not Dee Dee's.

Cornering someone in an open area is impossible, regardless of one's physical condition.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 18, 2013, 09:17:13 AM
It's easier to fit Dee Dee's story to the timeline than Zimmerman's.
To which aspect or version of Zimmerman's story are you referring?  I think his telling Singleton and Serino that he spent some time banging his flashlight, trying to get it to work, before heading back to his car, does help make his version fit the timeline.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 09:28:15 AM
I think his telling Singleton and Serino that he spent some time banging his flashlight, trying to get it to work, before heading back to his car, does help make his version fit the timeline.

Zimmerman can be heard hitting his flashlight on the recording. Those noises stopped about 30 seconds before the end of the call.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 18, 2013, 10:29:10 AM
The prosecution uses the word "confronted" after saying that GZ TM followed TM as he was trying to return home.  The implication is that GZ prevented TM from doing what he wanted.  Assuming that no weapon was drawn, I am not sure how a slower individual prevents a faster individual from going on his way unless he is cornered (which is probably where Gutman draws his narrative from).  I find the idea of TM being cornered (and not able to get away from GZ if thats what he wanted to do) completely implausible.

Dee Dee's narrative doesn't discount much of anything in regards to the paths that TM and GZ took.  She can't see either one and the only two landmarks she provides from the time TM notices GZ is TM being at the mail kiosk and being "right by his fathers house" after running away from GZ.  Being "right by his fathers house" is subjective, but is coordinated with running far enough to be out of breath, being somewhere he can't see GZ and that he doesn't need to run any more.

Not sure I'd say Dee Dee's story fits the timeline any better or worse than GZ's.  In roughly 4 minutes, she says TM ran, stopped running, went walking back again, saw GZ and then TM spoke to GZ.  Unless it can be established where TM was when he started running, there isn't anything to contradict what Dee Dee said happened in those 4 minutes.  We hear GZ getting out of his SUV and we make the assumption this corresponds to when Dee Dee says TM ran, so we give GZ 4 minutes from that point.  I don't see any reason why he could not have run/jogged/walked up to the 'T', looked down to not see TM.  Then at some point walked up to RVC and back where he meets up with TM.   

I think GZ and Dee Dee's account fit much better together after TM ran than before.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 18, 2013, 11:15:37 AM
The prosecution's problem with their pursuit and capture story is that during the first two minutes of the NEN call Zimmerman gives a detailed account of Martin's motions but says nothing about them during the last two minutes.  They could argue that Zimmerman just didn't want to admit to the dispatcher that he kept Martin in view after the dispatcher, in effect, told him to get back to his car.  But it is a stretch when considering the darkness of the dog path.   So what is their best detailed scenario, consistent with DeeDee, for the last two minutes of the call and the minute or less beyond?  How do they get the pursuit to end up at the T?  There is absolutely nothing to contradict Zimmerman's story that he was only on the cut through and RVC and returned to the T without seeing Martin until then.  It is also completely consistent with what he said on the NEN call.  He could be lying later about his address hunting intentions but telling the truth on the call about his lack of seeing of Martin.  Seeing Martin though a break in the houses after the call ended begs the question why Martin wasn't yet at home. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 11:33:34 AM
Seeing Martin though a break in the houses after the call ended begs the question why Martin wasn't yet at home.

The question of why Martin didn't go home is there regardless.

Do you think a jury will refuse to convict Zimmerman unless they have an answer?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 18, 2013, 12:35:38 PM
My guess is the prosecution is going to say that GZ was walking around during the NEN trying to find TM (pursuing him), then after the call hung up, located him and confronted him.  They are going to try to use Dee Dee to show that GZ struck first, limiting his ability to use SYG, then say even though TM hit him and was on top of him, GZ didn't fear great bodily harm when he shot TM. 

My personal belief is that though their theory isn't completely out of the realm of possibilities, they have little to no evidence to support it and overcome reasonable doubt.  Showing that something might be possible (a defense tactic) isn't the same as showing it most likely happened beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on January 18, 2013, 12:41:02 PM
Do you think a jury will refuse to convict Zimmerman unless they have an answer?
I don't like to predict the result of an American jury crapshoot.  If Zimmerman does take the stand and it is a disaster, then he might be convicted regardless of the evidence.  Haven't Trayvonite blogs managed to somehow merge the NEN call, DeeDee, the evidence that things started at the T and come up with a Murder2 scenario?  You would think that to overcome reasonable doubt you would need at least one plausible scenario.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 12:51:06 PM
Haven't Trayvonite blogs managed to somehow merge the NEN call, DeeDee, the evidence that things started at the T and come up with a Murder2 scenario? 

You tell me. I haven't found a Trayvonite blog I thought was worth reading regularly.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 03:25:16 PM
While he hadn't played organized football in a few years, teenagers don't just lose their athleticism because they aren't playing on a team.

Anyone's stamina will decline without some kind of physical activity.

The defense may want to argue that Martin's lifestyle changed significantly in the year before his death. That people who knew Martin for years had him typed in their minds as 'athletic', doesn't answer the question of whether he had recently been keeping in training.

Quote
TM had walked a mile and a half and run for maybe a total of 30 seconds in the previous hour and 15 minutes.  A normal walking pace would have him to the store and back in about a half an hour.   

According to Dee Dee he spent another fifteen minutes under the mail shade, standing, so not really resting. That leaves about fifteen minutes unaccounted for, in which he may have been walking or running. And we don't know what he was doing earlier in the day.

Quote
Not being able to run because he was "too tired" is laughable when Dee Dee says it, and am shocked that you would give the idea any credibility.

I'm puzzled that you are so certain about this. You don't know what this person had been doing all day, but around seven in the evening it's just not possible that he was tired. How do you know?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 03:31:20 PM
"In dozens of interviews with family members and acquaintances, and from details available in court documents and school records, Trayvon Martin is revealed as a standout athlete with a ravenous appetite. "

School records? What publication had access to the super-secret school records? Did it publish any of those 'details'?

What 'court documents' commented on Martin's appetite and athletic achievements? His parents' divorce proceedings?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 18, 2013, 03:37:24 PM
Have you seen what teenagers wear to play basketball in?

No.

Quote
I've played with, coached and counseled teenagers for 15 or so years and everyone of them wears baggy shorts or sweats that they run up and down the basketball court in.  Suggesting that baggy sweats would slow down and individual more than jeans and boots is not a good argument to make.

It was you that brought up clothing. I don't see it making a significant difference.

I think the 'jeans and boots' argument might get some eye rolls from the jury.

When I was younger, I walked and ran for exercise. I did a lot of it in jeans and boots.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on January 19, 2013, 02:26:45 AM
If pants sag, then the crotch area, where the legs meet, hangs down lower than where the person's legs meet, and this limits how far apart the legs can move without ripping the fabric, so they will somewhat hobble one's gait.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 19, 2013, 11:30:22 PM
If pants sag, then the crotch area, where the legs meet, hangs down lower than where the person's legs meet, and this limits how far apart the legs can move without ripping the fabric, so they will somewhat hobble one's gait.

So the issue isn't baggy, it's saggy.

ETA: A person contemplating running, in fear for his like, might consider pulling his pants up.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 20, 2013, 03:25:22 AM
Yes, that was supposed to be 'for his life'. Typos sure can kill the effect of dry wit.

There's a new theory on how Martin tried to elude Zimmerman.

You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZGXZOrEV7_c)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on January 20, 2013, 05:06:52 AM
So the issue isn't baggy, it's saggy.

ETA: A person contemplating running, in fear for his like, might consider pulling his pants up.

Aren't baggy pants generally worn hanging low on the hips?

All we hear from Zimmerman is that Martin ran while Zimmerman was still in his vehicle, and the young lady indicates Martin opted for walking fast instead of running, so maybe he didn't exactly tell her that he was running when he allegedly ran, perhaps to avoid appearing unmanly to her.

So I suspect it wasn't running for his life absolutely convinced the guy in the truck was out to kill him so much as it was suspicious that the guy in the truck might intend him harm, so instead of a "run for your life" scenario it was more of a speed up to lose the guy without completely sacrificing his dignity, in which case he might not have gone to the extreme of hitching up his trousers and hold the waistband with one hand while pumping his legs as fast as they would go.  We are talking about a teenager likely trying to preserve his self-image, not someone mature enough to not care what anybody thinks.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 20, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
All we hear from Zimmerman is that Martin ran while Zimmerman was still in his vehicle, and the young lady indicates Martin opted for walking fast instead of running, so maybe he didn't exactly tell her that he was running when he allegedly ran, perhaps to avoid appearing unmanly to her.

Sorry, that's not correct.

Dee Dee said that Martin ran the first time she suggested it, generally assumed to correspond to the time Zimmerman said Martin was running. It was later, after Martin thought he had lost Zimmerman, then said Zimmerman was following him again, that Martin said he would 'walk fast', according to the Crump interview.

The SAO interview differs at this point. Dee Dee said Martin told her he wouldn't run, and that's all she said that Martin said at that point. She then talked about how she could have known he wouldn't run because she could tell from his breathing how tired he was.

The SAO interview has another episode, between those two, that seems to be absent from the Crump interview. After Martin said he had lost Zimmerman, Dee Dee suggested he keep running anyway. That was when Martin said he was 'right by his father's house'. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 20, 2013, 07:07:00 PM
Anyone's stamina will decline without some kind of physical activity.

No argument from me on that one.  And the older you get, the worse it gets.  If TM were a fat slob, I could understand an argument for him ready to collapse after a 100 yard sprint.  A slenderly built teenager described as athletic, not so much.

Quote
The defense may want to argue that Martin's lifestyle changed significantly in the year before his death. That people who knew Martin for years had him typed in their minds as 'athletic', doesn't answer the question of whether he had recently been keeping in training.

I'm sure they will.  There are tons of professional athletes that are high half the time they aren't on the court.  I am sure at times it has some impact on their performance, but it doesn't appear to incapacitate them.  Now, if he was doing harder drugs and had some in his system, you might have something.  That of course would help the defense in other ways.   Even so, Dee Dee says after he stops running from GZ, he goes to walking and no mention of him stopping during the 4 minute call and no mention of GZ following or behind him until the last few seconds.  He could have casually walked from the mail thingy to BG's place in 2-3 minutes.  Again, unless Dee Dee changes her testimony, the prosecution has nothing to show GZ chased and prevented TM from reaching his destination.

Quote
According to Dee Dee he spent another fifteen minutes under the mail shade, standing, so not really resting. That leaves about fifteen minutes unaccounted for, in which he may have been walking or running. And we don't know what he was doing earlier in the day.

Standing is resting/recuperating.  Ever ran track or been to a meet?  Runners (sprinters and long distance) regain their breath and stamina by standing and walking around, not lying down or sitting.   Again, I find it odd that one would argue that a slender/athletic teenager who was standing around for 15 minutes would have difficulty running 100 yards and be incapable of going further.

What unaccounted minutes are you referring to? 

Quote
I'm puzzled that you are so certain about this. You don't know what this person had been doing all day, but around seven in the evening it's just not possible that he was tired. How do you know?

We are talking about a teenager running about a hundred yards towards home, not running a marathon.   Brandy says when she and Tracy got to the house Sat morning, TM was sleeping.  Dee Dee spent hours on the phone with TM that day and doesn't detail any strenuous activity other than running a few seconds to get out of the rain and under the mail thingy and running a short time away from GZ and ending up right by his fathers house.   Chad says they were hanging out watching NBA basketball before he decided to walk to the store.  Three witnesses who saw him that day and the only strenuous activity was running twice for a short period of time over a short distance.  In the absence of evidence of any strenuous activity, the court won't have any to consider.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 20, 2013, 07:26:27 PM
No.

It was you that brought up clothing. I don't see it making a significant difference.

I think the 'jeans and boots' argument might get some eye rolls from the jury.

When I was younger, I walked and ran for exercise. I did a lot of it in jeans and boots.

Fair enough.  You have now been informed.  Many teenagers today play basketball in baggy and saggy clothing and I've seen many kids sprint up and down the court grabbing hold of his pants as they ran.   I don't understand why they'd want to, but its what they do.  I'm sure it could be inhibiting, depending on how far they fell.  Any evidence this occurred?

I'm not sure whats that difficult to understand about jeans and boots slowing one down.  Who trains in jeans in boots or says I'm going out for a jog and puts on their jeans and boots?   There is a reason for it and I think a jury would be able to discern that.  A short pudgy GZ in jeans and boots has no chance of running down TM unless he was heavily under the influence of something.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 22, 2013, 05:31:59 AM
There are tons of professional athletes that are high half the time they aren't on the court. 

They are getting paid to stay in training.

My point isn't the direct impact of the chemicals. It is how Martin would have been spending his time. If he was spending it doing drugs and dealing drugs, he wasn't spending much of it staying in training.

The occasional afternoon shooting hoops or playing touch football doesn't much matter. I did that as a teenager, but I was never in great shape.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 22, 2013, 07:15:07 AM
When I was younger, I walked and ran for exercise. I did a lot of it in jeans and boots.

Who trains in jeans in boots or says I'm going out for a jog and puts on their jeans and boots?   
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 22, 2013, 07:46:49 AM

The occasional afternoon shooting hoops or playing touch football doesn't much matter. I did that as a teenager, but I was never in great shape.

I think you are over playing how good of shape a teenager with a slender/athletic build would need to be in to walk a mile and a half and run a couple of times for 15 seconds or so in a 75 minute window.  The only other activities we are aware of that day are sleeping in (from BG), talking on the phone for hours (from Dee Dee) and sitting around watching basketball (from Chad).   You have a great handle on this case and offer great insight, but on this point, I feel you are off base.  The only caveat I would add is if he had drugs in his system that would have inhibited him physically.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 22, 2013, 08:04:50 AM
What unaccounted minutes are you referring to? 

Martin was walking home from the 7-11 at 6:29. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7672881256/in/set-72157630816160472) Dee Dee and the phone records (http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/call+log.pdf) put him under the mail shade at 6:54 (p. 7). It's a 10 minute walk.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on January 22, 2013, 11:31:46 AM
Martin was walking home from the 7-11 at 6:29. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7672881256/in/set-72157630816160472) Dee Dee and the phone records (http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/call+log.pdf) put him under the mail shade at 6:54 (p. 7). It's a 10 minute walk.

Gotcha.  It wasn't that I didn't think there wasn't any unaccounted time, its that there is so much unaccounted time that I wasn't sure what you were referring to.  So you think instead of walking towards the general direction of home or standing around somewhere, maybe he was doing something strenuous as he was on the phone with Dee Dee and taking calls from Chad and others?  Not saying its impossible, but Dee Dee was on the phone with him between 6:30 and 6:54, so I would guess she would know.  TM was on the phone with Dee Dee almost the entire time from  2:38PM until the 7:16PM (for all but about 15 minutes).  The prosecution didn't seem interested in knowing what happened before TM got back to RTL, so I doubt it will be anything they offer an explanation for in court other than mentioning the trip to get juice and Skittles.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 24, 2013, 03:49:25 AM
Photo (http://rvalien.tumblr.com/post/21091600710/trayvon-martin-9-days-before-his-death) of Trayvon Martin, taken 9 days before his death.

I'm posting this here because it's pertinent to a recent discussion. I think it will be tough for the prosecution to argue that it would have been easy for Zimmerman to get this person off of him.

Is that a phone at his waist? No heart sticker.

ETA: I compared with an evidence photo of OM-7. Not the same phone.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 24, 2013, 09:27:02 AM
Photo (http://rvalien.tumblr.com/post/21091600710/trayvon-martin-9-days-before-his-death) of Trayvon Martin, taken 9 days before his death.

I'm posting this here because it's pertinent to a recent discussion. I think it will be tough for the prosecution to argue that it would have been easy for Zimmerman to get this person off of him.

Is that a phone at his waist? No heart sticker.

ETA: I compared with an evidence photo of OM-7. Not the same phone.

I am not even sure that is a phone.  Maybe some kind of a music player?  It looks like one of those keys is might be a refresh key?  I am bored so I will do some image checks with google.

The one thing that is striking is that he has it on his left side.  I have always thought he was right handed so I had kind of an issue with the mark being on the wrong side of GZ's nose.


IMO ALERT!  IMO ALERT!
And there is no way that teen was under 6 foot tall, IMO.  The lady next to him would have to be under 5 feet tall.  She is barely at shoulder height.  Sybrina only comes up to about his lip height and I don't think she is that short.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 24, 2013, 10:17:45 AM
I am not even sure that is a phone. 

I'm thinking that too.

A recording device was my next guess.

If we knew what kind of event that was taken at we might have better guesses.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on January 24, 2013, 10:49:39 AM
I'm thinking that too.

A recording device was my next guess.

If we knew what kind of event that was taken at we might have better guesses.

It has that funny handle so that lead me to look for video recorders.  I have gone thru oodles of pictures and can't find anything that looks like it.  Wouldn't that be a kick in the butt if it were a video recorder?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on January 24, 2013, 11:50:23 AM
Photo (http://rvalien.tumblr.com/post/21091600710/trayvon-martin-9-days-before-his-death) of Trayvon Martin, taken 9 days before his death.

Not to be overly skeptical, but how do we know the pictures were taken 9 days before his death?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 24, 2013, 11:53:14 AM
Not to be overly skeptical, but how do we know the pictures were taken 9 days before his death?

Good point. I should have written 'said to be'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on January 24, 2013, 12:01:40 PM
I think they've solved the mystery at CTH.

That's not something attached to the belt. It's the end of the belt, a broad belt with eyelets, protruding and bent back by Martin's wrist.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 01, 2013, 09:32:38 AM

Since at least the first bond hearing, the prosecutors have questioned whether Zimmerman's injuries fully supported his statements. (Audio, (http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815) complete; CNN transcript, (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html) with omissions at commercial breaks.)

I think this will be a strong point for them. When I first read the  medical report, (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/zimmerman_bond_hearing_exhibits/george_zimmerman_medical_report.pdf) I was surprised that Zimmerman's injuries were not more extensive.

I participated in some karate tournaments as a teenager. The rounds were two minutes, and it felt like eternity. A minute is a long time in a fight.

One of my martial arts manuals states that 'Flurries of punches to the face and body can be delivered at up to six punches per second.' (Black Medicine, N. Mashiro, Paladin Press, 1978, p. 9) If this is correct, the prosecution may have experts to testify similarly.

The photographs are consistent with the medical report. To me they look like Zimmerman took some hits, but not like he was beaten for 40 seconds.

Zimmerman might have protected his face with his arms, but he had no defensive wounds. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2197.msg102920.html#msg102920)

The deposition, (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/santiagodeposition.pdf) of Sgt. Santiago indicates that the severity of the injuries was the main point of contention, between Sgt. Smith wanting to charge Zimmerman and those who disagreed (pp. 6-7, 11-13, 33-34). I don't expect these opinions to be admissible, but I think they suggest this may also be a point contention among the jurors.

The injury evidence complements the statements of W-6. W-6 told FDLE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvBZicWPDE) that he couldn't see if Martin was striking blows (19:54-20:40, 21:19-56, 34:07-37:30, 39:05-41:03), and that he didn't hear 'any other noises or sounds' but yelling for help (10:08-14). In his SAO interview, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rKBDnHv2PY) de la Rionda elicited specifically that W-6 did not hear any sounds of punching or of a head striking concrete.

W-6's statements, and the comparative lightness of Zimmerman's injuries, together will be effective evidence for the prosecution to suggest that the struggle between Martin and Zimmerman was a wrestling match rather than a one-sided beating.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on February 01, 2013, 09:48:31 AM
Along the same lines NMNM, I noticed on the ummh other site that discusses this case, the claim that somebody noticed Martins hands before they were bagged (by whom?) and they looked like they were banged up.  I don't remember any such thing in the released discovery.  Did you?  For medical reasons such signs might have disappeared before autopsy. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on February 01, 2013, 11:22:16 AM
Didn't GZ say that TM spent some of the time slamming his head into the concrete and covering or trying to cover his mouth?  I believe this is how he describes the last 25 seconds or so.  GZ didn't give a specific amount of time for these actions, but its my estimation for about the length of time the two would have wrestled onto the concrete, have TM slam GZ's head up and down multiple times, have W6 see them struggling and hear GZ call for help, slide off the concrete,  have TM cover/attempt to cover his mouth, struggle to get the gun and have GZ draw, point and shoot.   I think most of the striking occurred in the first half of the fight, not so much the last half.  I think GZ overestimated how many blows TM threw, but as is mentioned above, when you are in the fight, it feels like more is happening to you than actually happens.

I think the defense is in good position on the "fear" of great bodily harm requirement.   A broken nose and multiple head contusions shows actual injuries that were not life threatening on their own, but serious enough to show that further harm was a reasonable belief and as W6 testified, the struggle continued even though he said he was going to call police.  There are officers on record as to what appeared to be a broken nose and disfigured skull GZ displayed that night.  The screams certainly depict someone in great fear and in anguish.   The forensics tests on whose voice was screaming were inconclusive.  A couple of witnesses said they saw a man on the ground in red screaming and while they recanted to the point of not being absolute on the guy on the bottom in red being the screamer, their statements are more advantageous for the defense than prosecution.  Until witnesses saw the picture of the 12 year old TM on the news, they all described the screaming as coming from a man.   

Unless the prosecution can show that it was at least more likely than not that TM was screaming, I don't see how they'd win this point.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 01, 2013, 12:09:41 PM
Along the same lines NMNM, I noticed on the ummh other site that discusses this case, the claim that somebody noticed Martins hands before they were bagged (by whom?) and they looked like they were banged up.  I don't remember any such thing in the released discovery.  Did you? 

No. This sounds like someone claiming to have an inside source.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on February 01, 2013, 12:19:23 PM
I think GZ overestimated how many blows TM threw, but as is mentioned above, when you are in the fight, it feels like more is happening to you than actually happens.

Yeah, pretty much this.  Looking at George's nose, I could easily see that any contact with the nose, even light contact, would probably cause noticeable pain.  I've long believed that George probably didn't get punched as many times as he said he did, but I have no trouble at all believing that George *felt* like he did.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 01, 2013, 12:48:23 PM
Until witnesses saw the picture of the 12 year old TM on the news, they all described the screaming as coming from a man.   

I don't know if that's true. I've done the research on what the witnesses said and when they said it, but I don't have a definite date for when the picture(s) first appeared.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on February 01, 2013, 01:33:59 PM
Until witnesses saw the picture of the 12 year old TM on the news, they all described the screaming as coming from a man.   

It is true that Mora and Cutcher didn't say they heard a child until Serino interviewed (http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/zimmermanevidence/audio/W16_SPD03012012.wav) them by phone on 3/1. They didn't say they heard a man either.

Cutcher didn't make a statement until 3/1.
 
Mora gave a written statement on the night of the shooting, saying she heard 'someone yelling; almost crying' (102/184 (http://www.axiomamnesia.com/TrayvonMartinFiles/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-FULL-case-report-documents.pdf)). She said she saw 'two men.'

Some of the 911 callers who heard screaming didn't comment on the age of the screamer on their calls, and I don't know that any of those witnesses have done so since.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on February 01, 2013, 01:44:25 PM
Correct.  If its necessary for accuracy to that extent, my statement should have said that any witness that commented on the nature of the voice that they heard screaming before the 12 picture of TM surfaced, described the voice as that of a man.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 04, 2013, 05:14:06 PM
I am thinking of doing another BDLR closing statement.  This time it will be based on the theory that Zimmerman was in the process of attempting to commit a forcible felony, "Forcibly Detaining Somebody" when he shot Martin, thus according to FL 776.041 (1) he can't claim self defense.  Before I bother, is there something obviously wrong with making this type of argument?  TIA.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: TalkLeft on March 04, 2013, 06:29:21 PM
I am thinking of doing another BDLR closing statement.  This time it will be based on the theory that Zimmerman was in the process of attempting to commit a forcible felony, "Forcibly Detaining Somebody" when he shot Martin, thus according to FL 776.041 (1) he can't claim self defense.  Before I bother, is there something obviously wrong with making this type of argument?  TIA.

Yes, it will be deleted. It's not an issue in the case, it's not factually supported and neither party has raised it. You may not raise your unsupported, speculative theories of guilt here..
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on March 04, 2013, 06:37:17 PM
What evidence are they going to put on to show that?  Just that GZ got out of the car?  I imagine the defense would counter that if he wanted to forcibly detain TM, he would have done it when TM was in sight and much closer to his vehicle than after he ran away.  They will also offer evidence of the beating he took to show that he wasn't out there with his weapon drawn and 40+ seconds of screams for help.

I think the only shot at manslaughter is to say that GZ's injuries didn't meet the standard to be able to use deadly force.  To get that though, they'd probably have to show more likely than not that it was TM's screams caught on the 911 call.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on March 05, 2013, 10:07:14 AM
Yes, it will be deleted. It's not an issue in the case, it's not factually supported and neither party has raised it. You may not raise your unsupported, speculative theories of guilt here..

What about  unsupported, speculative theories of innocence?

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on March 05, 2013, 10:22:35 AM
What about  unsupported, speculative theories of innocence?

Not to throw ice water on you but, regardless of the theory, the Presumption of Innocence is a fact.  And the last I checked, you better have some evidence to support your theory or you are off to the spinmill courtesy of the dreaded DeleteHammer.

 ;)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: unitron on March 05, 2013, 01:50:58 PM
Not to throw ice water on you but, regardless of the theory, the Presumption of Innocence is a fact.  And the last I checked, you better have some evidence to support your theory or you are off to the spinmill courtesy of the dreaded DeleteHammer.

 ;)

I didn't say that I was going to raise them.  :)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: TalkLeft on March 06, 2013, 06:05:26 PM
Cutcher didn't make a statement until 3/1. Mora gave a written statement on the night of the shooting, saying she heard 'someone yelling; almost crying' (102/184 (http://www.axiomamnesia.com/TrayvonMartinFiles/Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-FULL-case-report-documents.pdf)). She said she saw 'two men.'

According to Officer Mead who took the statement (p. 18 of 183 pp discovery released May, 2012), Cutcher told Mead she didn't see anything but her roommate did. Cutcher also wrote out Mora's statement to give to Mead.

Quote
On 2/26/12, I [was collecting witness statements.] I observed a female on her back porch and asked if she observed anything. She said no, but her roomate did. I requested her to find her roomate. and ask if she would provide a sworn statement. She said she would look for her.

Several minutes later I returned and met with her and her roomate. I requested a sworn statement but both ___ (Cutcher) and ____ (Mora) advised they were afraid and did not want to assist in providing a statement.

Again, several minutes later, ___ (Cutcher) called me over to her porch.
____ (Cutcher) stated that ____ (Mora) would provide a sworn statement and ------ (Cutcher) would write it for her due to translation. ____(Cutcher) provided me a written statement sworn to by___ Mora based on____ (Mora's) testimony.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 08, 2013, 06:08:34 AM
Yman, a lawyer, has been telling me, that
Quote
The standard used to determine whether the fear is "reasonable" is an objective standard, not merely whether the defendant subjectively feared for his life.
.  Our colloquy started here (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2013/3/6/5418/05480/51#51).   He claims that this gives the Prosecution and opportunity to exploit Zimmerman's untruths and defeat self defense.  I really don't understand (IOW believe) him and invite the posters here to join in.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 08, 2013, 06:57:40 AM
Yman, a lawyer, has been telling me, that .  Our colloquy started here (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2013/3/6/5418/05480/51#51).   He claims that this gives the Prosecution and opportunity to exploit Zimmerman's untruths and defeat self defense.  I really don't understand (IOW believe) him and invite the posters here to join in.

What untruths?

EDIT: What reasonable person wouldn't think that someone that had punched them, got on top of them and slammed their head on concrete, wasn't intending to do them serious injury? I can only see a reasonable person not believing they were in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death if we redefine what a reasonable person is.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: DebFrmHell on March 08, 2013, 10:55:39 AM
What untruths?

EDIT: What reasonable person wouldn't think that someone that had punched them, got on top of them and slammed their head on concrete, wasn't intending to do them serious injury? I can only see a reasonable person not believing they were in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death if we redefine what a reasonable person is.

That is just Yman.  That is how he rolls.     ::)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on March 08, 2013, 12:33:30 PM
Yman, a lawyer, has been telling me, that .  Our colloquy started here (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2013/3/6/5418/05480/51#51).   He claims that this gives the Prosecution and opportunity to exploit Zimmerman's untruths and defeat self defense.  I really don't understand (IOW believe) him and invite the posters here to join in.

Well the first thing I would point out is that "fear for your life" is not the standard.  Its fear of great bodily harm.  I would say having a visibly broken nose and being in an inescapable defensive position (as described by W6) should pretty much put that to rest.  You also had individuals give statements that they were afraid for their own safety that they locked themselves in their home and grabbed deadly weapons in case they needed to defend themselves.  Add on the screams and I don't see how any reasonable person would not come to the objective conclusion that any reasonable person  in that position would be in fear of the minimum standard of great bodily harm. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 09, 2013, 10:33:50 AM
To summarize my discussion yesterday with Yman, it started out when I said that the fact it can't be disproved that it was Zimmerman's screaming is enough to get him acquitted.  Yman pointed out, correctly I now think, that it wasn't enough that Zimmerman felt he was in great fear of serious injury or death but that that this fear had to be "reasonable".  I said that his injuries as well as Witness #6's testimony showed that a fear of greater and very serious injuries in the immediate future was reasonable.  He didn't seem to agree and cited that Zimmerman's injuries weren't so serious and Zimmerman has credibility problems, especially the latter.  I pointed out that I don't hold Zimmerman's credibility in high regard either but there is enough evidence outside of Zimmerman's statements to acquit him. 

The genesis of the discussion was a post I wrote expressing surprise that Jeralyn had written (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2013/3/6/5418/05480/38#38), "you are almost certainly wrong that Zimmerman will not testify".   I argued it was an unnecessary risk but Yman seemed to think (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2013/3/6/5418/05480/65#65) he had to to testify.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on March 09, 2013, 12:50:34 PM
Why would GZ be required to testify to get acquitted?  I can maybe see an argument that it would be difficult to win immunity without him testifying, but at trial, the prosecution has the burden.  If as YMan is arguing, its not whether GZ felt this fear, but whether someone else finds that fear reasonable, I don't see how GZ's statements matter.  IF a broken nose, multiple head injuries pleas for help, witnesses seeking safety in upstairs bedrooms, grabbing deadly weapons, seeing him restrained and being attacked aren't enough for a person to believe that GZ reasonably feared great bodily harm, then I'm not sure anything GZ has to say is going to sway them.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: ding7777 on March 10, 2013, 08:52:08 PM
The prosecution has a problem in explaining why TM stayed at the T (or circled backed to the T) if TM thought (according to DeeDee) some crazy man was watching/following him. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 10, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
grabbing deadly weapons

You mean W-20? As I recall, he said he was looking for a knife in the kitchen. I don't think he reported actually picking one up, much less 'grabbing' one.

I don't recall anyone else mentioning going for a weapon at all.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 10, 2013, 09:20:04 PM
You mean W-20? As I recall, he said he was looking for a knife in the kitchen. I don't think he reported actually picking one up, much less 'grabbing' one.

I don't recall anyone else mentioning going for a weapon at all.

Regardless of the details, leftwig has a point. Why wouldn't people go out to help unless they felt afraid? You want to argue they weren't afraid? How much greater would GZ's fear have to of been being the one injured, on the bottom and unable to retreat to the safety the witnesses enjoyed?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on March 10, 2013, 09:23:53 PM
You mean W-20? As I recall, he said he was looking for a knife in the kitchen. I don't think he reported actually picking one up, much less 'grabbing' one.

I don't recall anyone else mentioning going for a weapon at all.

Thats the one.  Said he got into the drawer to get the knife thats when he heard the pop or gun shot. 

I used "witnesses" plural because I was describing things witnesses did.  If you took that to mean I was implying all witnesses went and got weapons, you interpreted the my statements incorrectly.   
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 10, 2013, 09:57:45 PM
I used "witnesses" plural because I was describing things witnesses did.  If you took that to mean I was implying all witnesses went and got weapons

I took 'grabbing deadly weapons' to mean at least two weapons were grabbed. That is what the plural normally means in English.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 12:56:37 AM
You want to argue they weren't afraid?

I want to keep misinformation from spreading. There's already too much of it in this case.

People can argue their points without casually tossing in exaggerations.

Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 06:04:34 AM
I'm starting to wonder if the prosecution might be willing to plead this down to a misdemeanor, like 'reckless endangerment' or 'imprudent exiting of a vehicle'.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on March 11, 2013, 10:17:55 AM
'imprudent exiting of a vehicle'.

Or maybe "aggravated Kravitzing".

(And as my friend always likes to point out: say what you wlll about Gladys Kravitz, she was always just telling the truth-- Samantha Stevens was a witch.)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: redstripe on March 11, 2013, 01:14:46 PM
Why would GZ be required to testify to get acquitted?  I can maybe see an argument that it would be difficult to win immunity without him testifying, but at trial, the prosecution has the burden.  If as YMan is arguing, its not whether GZ felt this fear, but whether someone else finds that fear reasonable, I don't see how GZ's statements matter.  IF a broken nose, multiple head injuries pleas for help, witnesses seeking safety in upstairs bedrooms, grabbing deadly weapons, seeing him restrained and being attacked aren't enough for a person to believe that GZ reasonably feared great bodily harm, then I'm not sure anything GZ has to say is going to sway them.

Additionally, how exactly do they intend to establish a depraved heart/state of mind?  The prosecution quotes the "f-n punks" statement as if it were one of the last things Zimmerman said before the physical altercation occured, but at trial a jury will hear several addition minutes of George calmly talking to the operator and reciting adresses and possible meet-up locations with inbound officers.  It seems like the prosecution is trying to use this statement, along with the "profiling"/stalking accusation, to establish a kind of borderline malice aforethought and then apply it to depraved heart murder because they don't have enough evidence for murder in the first degree.  It's my understanding (and feel free to tear this apart) that the difference in state of mind between what is needed for first and second degree murder is not just a difference in severity or how specific their intentions were, but rather a difference that takes into account a number of characteristics.
    Let's flip things around and say, hypothetically, that the prosecution had a strong first degree murder case against Zimmerman (no injuries or signs that TM had assaulted him and he had additionally said "that punk is going to die tonight" to the operator), and Zimmerman's attorney tried to argue for second degree murder stating that George was enraged at the fact that the 'punks' were always getting away and chased and shot TM without pre-meditation.  My point is that the defense wouldn't successfully be able to argue depraved heart either because of the long, unemotional conversation with the operator and the fact that this state of mind does not comport with stalking a random person in the dark.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 11, 2013, 01:31:40 PM
Additionally, how exactly do they intend to establish a depraved heart/state of mind?

The state has to convince the jury that it was TM screaming on the 911 recording.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: redstripe on March 11, 2013, 01:49:16 PM
The state has to convince the jury that it was TM screaming on the 911 recording.

It was my impression that his father's inability to recognize him in addition to the FBI expert's opinion that it was essentially impossible to match would render that recording at best useless and at worst damaging to the prosecution in light of the fact Zimmerman's father, unlike TM's, confidently identified his son the first time.  Furthermore, unless the defense advances a theory along the lines that Zimmerman tackled TM, tried to detain him and then killed him to keep it quiet, TM's screaming alone doesn't establish Zimmerman pulled his gun out of a depraved state of mind  if Zimmerman was engaged in a physical altercation where he was receiving substantial injuries (it's arguably grossly negligent/reckless enough for negligent homicide/manslaughter).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 01:59:17 PM
It was my impression that his father's inability to recognize him in addition to the FBI expert's opinion that it was essentially impossible to match would render that recording at best useless and at worst damaging to the prosecution in light of the fact Zimmerman's father, unlike TM's, confidently identified his son the first time.
Both sides can line up at least half a dozen friends and relatives to say that it is their guy screaming.  I would be pissed at the judge if I was on he jury and she allowed them to waste my time by forcing me to listen to such BS.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 11, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
It was my impression that his father's inability to recognize him in addition to the FBI expert's opinion that it was essentially impossible to match would render that recording at best useless and at worst damaging to the prosecution in light of the fact Zimmerman's father, unlike TM's, confidently identified his son the first time.  Furthermore, unless the defense advances a theory along the lines that Zimmerman tackled TM, tried to detain him and then kill him to keep it quiet, TM's screaming alone doesn't establish Zimmerman pulled his gun out of a depraved state of mind (although it maybe enough for reckless or grossly negligent) if Zimmerman was engaged in a physical altercation where he was receiving substantial injuries.

I don't think the version with TM screaming makes a lick of sense, but I'll bet the state goes with it, calling Sybrina and others to the stand, who will swear on a stack of bibles that it was TM's voice. The story will almost have be that Zimmerman pulled his gun out at the beginning of the struggle, and Martin was screaming for help and mercy while holding down Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman finally got his chance, and shot Martin through the heart. If that really happened, I'd think it was depraved. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 11, 2013, 02:14:18 PM
Both sides can line up at least half a dozen friends and relatives to say that it is their guy screaming.  I would be pissed at the judge if I was on he jury and she allowed them to waste my time by forcing me to listen to such BS.

And who would you take it out on? The judge isn't on trial. Eyewitnesses who merely got a glimpse of a fleeing suspect's back have been allowed to testify, so I don't think the judge will exclude earwitness identification in this circumstance. She'll probably say it's up to the jury to assess the witnesses' credibility.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 02:22:18 PM
It was my impression that his father's inability to recognize him in addition to the FBI expert's opinion that it was essentially impossible to match would render that recording at best useless and at worst damaging to the prosecution in light of the fact Zimmerman's father, unlike TM's, confidently identified his son the first time.

The prosecution has to hope the jurors will disregard those circumstantial issues in favor of their intuitions over who is more credible, and that those intuitions will go the prosecution's way.

Other than hoping for luck, the only thing I see the prosecution has going for them, on this question, is a possible sympathy factor for the bereaved parents.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: redstripe on March 11, 2013, 02:38:36 PM
I don't think the version with TM screaming makes a lick of sense, but I'll bet the state goes with it, calling Sybrina and others to the stand, who will swear on a stack of bibles that it was TM's voice. The story will almost have be that Zimmerman pulled his gun out at the beginning of the struggle, and Martin was screaming for help and mercy while holding down Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman finally got his chance, and shot Martin through the heart. If that really happened, I'd think it was depraved.

I guess my point is that the scenario you outlined (Zimmerman taking out his gun at the beginning and then weathering TM's blows and ignoring his cries for help/mercy while waiting for the perfect kill shot) is really an accusation of first degree murder because it assumes that there was an clear desire to shoot and kill Martin from the onset of the confrontation and that he carried out this desire with a level of cold-bloodedness and deliberation that is substantially different from the depraved heart state of mind.  An example of a second degree murder scenario would be if Zimmerman had been following TM in his car, TM had suddenly made an insulting or threatening gesture at Zimmerman, and then an enraged Zimmerman had immediately jumped out of his car and started firing at TM, thus showing a "depraved indifference to human life."
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 11, 2013, 02:46:44 PM
I guess my point is that the scenario you outlined (Zimmerman taking out his gun at the beginning and then weathering TM's blows and ignoring his cries for help/mercy while waiting for the perfect kill shot) is really an accusation of first degree murder . . .

That's a good point. I guess the state decided to cut Zimmerman a break (I say sarcastically). It is, though, almost impossible to explain the desperate screams as coming from TM unless you assume it was because of Zimmerman's gun. So far, the state has avoid tipping their hand as to what they'll say occurred. That's why the seemingly-abandoned demand for a statement of particulars could have been important.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 02:54:59 PM
That's a good point. I guess the state decided to cut Zimmerman a break (I say sarcastically). It is, though, almost impossible to explain the desperate screams as coming from TM unless you assume it was because of Zimmerman's gun. So far, the state has avoid tipping their hand as to what they'll say occurred. That's why the seemingly-abandoned demand for a statement of particulars could have been important.
I think BDLR said something about the possibility that both were screaming, a hearing or two ago.  Anybody can dig that one out?  I have no idea how they could run with that one.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 02:55:57 PM
I guess the state decided to cut Zimmerman a break (I say sarcastically).

They would have had to go to a grand jury to get an indictment for first degree murder.

You probably knew that, but I thought someone else might be about to ask a question for which that would be the answer. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 11, 2013, 03:03:04 PM
I think BDLR said something about the possibility that both were screaming, a hearing or two ago.  Anybody can dig that one out?  I have no idea how they could run with that one.

It was the December 11, 2012 hearing. About 14:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H81TM6zl_6o
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 03:07:27 PM
It was the December 11, 2012 hearing. About 14:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H81TM6zl_6o
Wow!   8)  It took you only about 9 minutes to find it.  Care to let us in on your secret?  ;)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 11, 2013, 03:13:46 PM
Wow!   8)  It took you only about 9 minutes to find it.  Care to let us in on your secret?  ;)

I googled 'zimmerman hearing "two voices"' and discovered a reference to the Dec 11 2012 hearing. Then I went to manybuddies' youtube page to find the hearing and fast forwarded to the parts where BDLR was talking.

It actually only took a couple of minutes.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: whonoze on March 11, 2013, 03:18:47 PM
Why wouldn't people go out to help unless they felt afraid?

You don't know what, or who, they might have been afraid of.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: redstripe on March 11, 2013, 03:36:07 PM
That's a good point. I guess the state decided to cut Zimmerman a break (I say sarcastically).
I'd actually say that they cut  themselves a break.  From what I know of the overall timeline and circumstances of the events, it seems like there are only two workable criminal charges against Zimmerman. 
One is a possible criminally negligent homicide charge where the prosecution advances a theory somewhere along the lines of "Zimmerman apprehended a substantial probability that a physical altercation between him and Martin would occur and then recklessly disregarded that possibility in following Martin and then used unjustifiable/disproportionate deadly force when said altercation occurred."  The other is a more strained theory of first degree murder which would have to propose that Zimmerman had a clear iintention to kill martin before the fight even occurred and that he was either so focused on killing Martin in a certain way that put himself in a position where he could be beaten on and then ignored his broken nose and gashed head or he possibly even wanted to incur physical injuries to make it look like self defense.
The first theory is very vulnerable to a self-defense claim and also admits a lot of things about Martin's conduct that his attorneys don't want to admit.  The second theory has a higher burden of proof than what the prosecution could likely show given their evidence.  It seems like they brought a second degree murder charge in an attempt to split the difference between the two, thereby maintaining the narrative they wanted about Martin while utilizing the limited evidence they had.  The problem is that depraved heart murder isn't just a line in the middle of the gradient between these two crimes.  It is a substantially different charge in that it usually involves the perpetrator initiating a spontaneous deadly act which arises directly out of an intent that, while clearly homicidal in nature, only exists within the perpatrator's mind long enough for him to partially realize what he is about to do(which in this case would have to be the whole process of following martin, confronting him and shooting him).  You can't get there by making a martini mix consisting of two parts criminal negligence (allegedly getting out of his car when he shouldn't have, reacting with unjustifiable deadly force etc) and two parts premeditation (allegedly profiling and stalking a  teenager for a prolonged period of time)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 11, 2013, 03:36:34 PM
You don't know what, or who, they might have been afraid of.

What do you mean? They wouldn't likely be afraid of the person screaming for help, would they? In the context of leftwig's post it was GZ. I haven't seen a single rational argument that it was TM. Regardless, you might want to re-read leftwig's post to get the context. I suppose it could be argued that it was GZ's screams that created the witnesses' fear. If so, would their fear be more or less reasonable than the fear of someone with the injuries and in the situation leftwig describes? I'd argue GZ's fear was much more reasonable since he was in the middle of it and the witnesses were in safety.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 11, 2013, 03:38:24 PM
Not really. Zimmerman mentioned 'losing wrist control' of TM allowing TM to reach toward his side, which GZ took as a move for 'the' gun. As I understand it, in cop-talk "wrist-control" refers to a hold that induces quite a bit of pain, thus subduing the holdee.

Been reading Leatherman's blog, have you? Could you point out where GZ said he had "wrist-control" in any of his statements or his re-enactment? Maybe I missed it.

EDIT: Maybe this is what you are thinking of. From the 2/29 Serino interview.

Serino: Compact? And you were able to overpower him as far as holding his wrist, you gained wrist…we call it wrist control…you gained wrist control on him basically, and you were able to basically liberate both hands…
Zimmerman: Yes, sir.


https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1025

However in the re-enactment GZ demonstrates what Serino's 'wrist control' was. It was simply clamping TM's hand against his side with his upper arm.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 03:44:40 PM
There is evidence beyond the voice IDs by family members that point to TM as the screamer. Most significantly, the audio recordings of the screams on W11's 911 call are inconsistent with the sound that would come from someone who was getting their head banged against a solid object or who was having their mouth covered by someone else's hand. The former would cause abrupt pitch changes, the latter changes in tonal balance of the screams (i.e. they would be alternately muffled and unmuffled) neither of which is in evidence on the 911 call.
What happens to that theory if Zimmerman got off his screams in between head bangings (there were more than 2?) and mouth coverings?  I have forgotten the number of distinct separated screams even though it has been discussed in this forum several times.  20?  The last scream ended before the shot by maybe 1/3 second, IIRC.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 11, 2013, 03:53:51 PM
Serino, not Zimmerman, said 'wrist control'. He said gained, not lost. He meant Zimmerman pinning Martin's wrist between his (Zimmerman's) arm and flank, after Zimmerman thought Martin had started to reach for the gun.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 11, 2013, 04:04:10 PM
I just realized that this line:

Zimmerman: I just remember not wanting to hit my own hand, I was holding his, it went past my hand, my body… (sigh)

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1025

Is what GZ was demonstrating at 43:20 in this video. The grabbing motion with his left hand was to keep TM's other hand away from his face. It's been suggested by some in some places (Youtube video makers especially. You know who they are.) that he was grabbing TM's shirt to 'hold him'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzKYeX0DLI
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 11, 2013, 04:10:38 PM
Serino, not Zimmerman, said 'wrist control'. He said gained, not lost. He meant Zimmerman pinning Martin's wrist between his (Zimmerman's) arm and flank, after Zimmerman thought Martin had started to reach for the gun.

It could be that GZ was talking about gaining control of TM's hand (presumably right) with his left hand. Keeping it out of his face as TM's other hand reached for the gun (or so he believed). In any case, he never "lost" control as you point out. He gained the control as TM reached for the gun.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on March 11, 2013, 04:12:58 PM
Not really. Zimmerman mentioned 'losing wrist control' of TM allowing TM to reach toward his side, which GZ took as a move for 'the' gun. As I understand it, in cop-talk "wrist-control" refers to a hold that induces quite a bit of pain, thus subduing the holdee.

The whole "wrist control" thing is overblown, and simply describes George catching Trayvon's wrist at the last second right before pulling the gun out.  So that's a severe stretch to use that to point to Trayvon as the screaming, for nearly a minute before the supposed "wrist lock".


Quote
There is evidence beyond the voice IDs by family members that point to TM as the screamer.


No there's not.

Quote
Most significantly, the audio recordings of the screams on W11's 911 call are inconsistent with the sound that would come from someone who was getting their head banged against a solid object or who was having their mouth covered by someone else's hand.

No it isn't, unless you know at what points his head was meeting concrete, how hard, and at what point he was being muffled.

Keep in mind, that when suddenly losing the ability to inhale, the brain can go into panic thus making even a split second seem like a very long time, and can leave an impression far more significant than the moment you actually couldn't breath.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 11, 2013, 05:25:35 PM
Then we would have to amend it to account for Zimmerman's super-human-powers of timing his vocalizations of great distress precisely. Or his politeness in not attempting to scream while being smothered.
The screams are barely audible.  We don't know how many and how long the smothering incidents were.  Could have been only one or two.  Why don't you review this thread (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/6/5418/05480) over at TalkLeft?  Yman really got his butt kicked when he kept trying to base the prosecution case on the claim that Zimmerman's prior statements are the things that have to be corroborated by the defense.  I sent him running away, licking his wounds this afternoon.  ;D
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: whonoze on March 11, 2013, 05:53:02 PM
Weren't you trying to take his words as truth even though you got it wrong?

You haven't even remotely convinced me that I got it wrong.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: Kyreth on March 11, 2013, 06:32:35 PM
Then we would have to amend it to account for Zimmerman's super-human-powers of timing his vocalizations of great distress precisely. Or his politeness in not attempting to scream while being smothered.

Or point out that maybe individual screams were in response to an impact that inflicted pain, and that sounds from being muffled didn't get picked up on the 911 call.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: TalkLeft on March 11, 2013, 08:41:36 PM
Please do not reply further to Whonoze. He is being banned. All he does is argue speculative theories of guilt. He's been warned not to do this, and he was allowed back here to address his video people were talking about. He's outworn his welcome and will now be leaving us. I will also be removing his most speculative comments.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 12, 2013, 08:52:19 AM
I think I have asked these before but I still am not sure of the answers.

1) Is there any precedent for a defendant in a self defense case in Florida being granted immunity without testifying?

2) Which of Zimmerman's statements, both to investigators and the media, can be entered into evidence and presented in court if he never takes the stand?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 12, 2013, 09:55:08 AM
If their is any ambiguity in 2) of my preceding post, I meant what is the prosecution allowed to enter in its initial case.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on March 12, 2013, 10:56:08 AM
On #1, do you mean is he required to testify by rule of law, or are there any previous cases where a defendant did not testify?  I don't believe a defendant is required to testify, but I think it would be a very rare case for one to be able to meet the burden of proof for immunity without doing so (would need other eye witnesses).  GZ does have some things going for him in this regard (documented injuries, cries for help captured, witness to moments of the struggle), but I can see this judge in this case granting him a immunity on just that. 

On #2, great question.  Not sure there is an absolute answer.   Could the prosecution put any recorded statements in their case (not just cross examination material)?  Can the defense put his video walk through in without having him take the stand?   
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 12, 2013, 12:02:06 PM
On 1) I was asking if there are any previous Florida cases where the defendant didn't testify but was still granted immunity.  If the answer is no, I can see why Zimmerman's defense might want to skip the hearing if they would prefer that he never gets cross examined.

On 2) John Galt, who posts on the CTH, thinks the prosecution can get Zimmerman's various recorded statements put into the record with this hearsay exception:
Quote
90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.—The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(5) RECORDED RECOLLECTION.—A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge, but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. A party may read into evidence a memorandum or record when it is admitted, but no such memorandum or record is admissible as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

Without Zimmerman to badger about these prior statements, I think their effect would be minimal.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 12, 2013, 01:20:51 PM
John Galt, who posts on the CTH, thinks the prosecution can get Zimmerman's various recorded statements put into the record with this hearsay exception:
Without Zimmerman to badger about these prior statements, I think their effect would be minimal.

The prosecution can get any statement made by Zimmerman admitted, as long as it's relevant and more probative than prejudicial.  It comes in under the "admissions" hearsay exception: "ADMISSIONS.—A statement that is offered against a party and is: (a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity."
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 12, 2013, 01:33:58 PM
In order to get a statement Zimmerman made admitted as a recorded recollection, Zimmerman would have to testify, since part of the process of admitting a recorded recollection is having the witness affirm that the recollection accurately represents the witness's knowledge at the time it was recorded.

As I mentioned, the prosecutors don't need it to bring in Zimmerman's statements, so it would only be used by the defense if Zimmerman testifies.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 12, 2013, 01:50:52 PM
The way I now imagine the closing summations of the trial is

Prosecution: Charts of Zimmerman statements about various things at different times with claims that the variations, exaggerations and implausibilities prove his guilt.  DeeDee will be gone before trial.

Defense: Fl 776.012 is read a few times with explanation that all they need to do to find Zimmerman not guilty is that they think it is reasonable that he had a reasonable fear of being seriously injured if he didn't shoot.  The final sentence might be, "Remember that W#6 said that the last thing he saw before going inside to call 911 was Zimmerman, who we know was already injured, with his back on the concrete and Martin in a dominant position on top of him."
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 12, 2013, 01:56:45 PM
I recently found a Florida case that surprised me. In Bryant v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9805753067217058728&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 98 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), the court held that a statement made by a defendant that is otherwise admissible under a hearsay exception, is admissible by the defense, even if the defendant doesn't testify. I'd thought that a defendant couldn't introduce self-serving statements under hearsay exceptions while avoiding cross-examination by not testifying.

That would seem to me to indicate that in the unlikely event the state didn't introduce the NEN call, the defense could introduce it if they wanted to. Also, some statements made by Zimmerman immediately following the shooting might be admissible by the defense as excited utterances.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: leftwig on March 12, 2013, 01:59:49 PM
In order to get a statement Zimmerman made admitted as a recorded recollection, Zimmerman would have to testify, since part of the process of admitting a recorded recollection is having the witness affirm that the recollection accurately represents the witness's knowledge at the time it was recorded.

As I mentioned, the prosecutors don't need it to bring in Zimmerman's statements, so it would only be used by the defense if Zimmerman testifies.

So, if the prosecution plays a statement GZ made during a police interview and leaves out all the context surrounding that statement, its admissible and the defense cannot introduce all of the contextual statements explaining the statement introduced by the prosecution, they would have to put GZ on the stand to explain it?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 12, 2013, 02:03:43 PM
Prosecution: Charts of Zimmerman statements about various things at different times with claims that the variations, exaggerations and implausibilities prove his guilt.  DeeDee will be gone before trial.

If that's all the prosecution offers, then under Florida's laws it shouldn't even go to the jury. That doesn't come close to meeting the state's burden of proof.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 12, 2013, 02:15:13 PM
So, if the prosecution plays a statement GZ made during a police interview and leaves out all the context surrounding that statement, its admissible and the defense cannot introduce all of the contextual statements explaining the statement introduced by the prosecution, they would have to put GZ on the stand to explain it?

No. In fact I was getting ready to add a comment about that. There's a rule called the "doctrine of completeness":

Quote
90.108(1): When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously.

It isn't clear by the language how much is included in "any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously," and it is somewhat within the judge's discretion. I've read quite a few cases trying to figure out how much must be admitted -- whether just the surrounding section or the entire recording -- and I'm still not certain. However, it does seem like generally the entire thing can be used.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 12, 2013, 02:34:06 PM
If that's all the prosecution offers, then under Florida's laws it shouldn't even go to the jury. That doesn't come close to meeting the state's burden of proof.
But a case in Florida is allowed to go forward with an Information that doesn't come close to giving probable cause for the charges?
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: MJW on March 12, 2013, 02:42:59 PM
But a case in Florida is allowed to go forward with an Information that doesn't come close to giving probable cause for the charges?

It's a long way from probable cause to beyond a reasonable doubt. The SCOTUS has said that the Constitutional standard for charging a defendant is very low, provided the accused isn't imprisoned prior to trial. Florida law provides for a adversarial preliminary hearing if a defendant is held without bond.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: TalkLeft on March 12, 2013, 06:51:50 PM
Comment deleted talking about what O'Mara should have done at the preliminary hearing. There was no preliminary hearing. The rules don't provide for it in these circumstances. See here (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/6/6/63420/28270/112#112).
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: RickyJim on March 12, 2013, 07:10:25 PM
Comment deleted talking about what O'Mara should have done at the preliminary hearing. There was no preliminary hearing. The rules don't provide for it in these circumstances. See here (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/6/6/63420/28270/112#112).
Sorry, I had missed that earlier discussion.  The good news is that most places are not like Florida. 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 12, 2013, 09:07:57 PM
It could be that GZ was talking about gaining control of TM's hand (presumably right) with his left hand. Keeping it out of his face as TM's other hand reached for the gun (or so he believed).

No, it could not be.

I don't understand why you are muddling the issue with this, after posting the quote yourself.

It was in the last interview, and Serino introduced the term 'wrist control', implying that it was law enforcement jargon. He was obviously referring to Zimmerman pinning Martin's wrist with his right arm, as he demonstrated in both the reenactment and the CVSA video.

Zimmerman answered without using the term 'wrist control'. There is no question of what Zimmerman was talking about when using the term, at least in the SPD interviews, because he never did.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: FromBelow on March 12, 2013, 09:50:12 PM
No, it could not be.

I don't understand why you are muddling the issue with this, after posting the quote yourself.

It was in the last interview, and Serino introduced the term 'wrist control', implying that it was law enforcement jargon. He was obviously referring to Zimmerman pinning Martin's wrist with his right arm, as he demonstrated in both the reenactment and the CVSA video.

Zimmerman answered without using the term 'wrist control'. There is no question of what Zimmerman was talking about when using the term, at least in the SPD interviews, because he never did.

GZ demonstrated he was controlling one of TM's hands with his left, preventing him from hitting his face/smothering him, and also demonstrated he was controlling TM's other hand by clasping it between his side and right upper arm.  I orignally thought GZ, when responding to Serino's 'wrist control" statements, was talking about clasping TM's hand between his upper right arm and side. I'm not so sure now. Why do you believe GZ was talking about the hand TM was using to reach for his gun (in his belief) when Serino was talking about wrist control during their interview? Look back at my earlier comments.
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 12, 2013, 10:59:31 PM
GZ demonstrated he was controlling one of TM's hands with his left, preventing him from hitting his face/smothering him

CVSA video (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/statements/video_interview_cvsa_0227.asf)

41:32-46, 7:00:09-23
Quote
Erwin: OK. That's when your jacket came up, and he saw that, your gun, right?

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.

Erwin: Your gun on your left side, right side?

Zimmerman: My right side.

Erwin: OK. So your gun's on your right side. Your, where were your hands then?

Zimmerman: Trying to keep his hands, away.


42:17-38, 7:00:54-7:01:15
Quote
Erwin: OK, your hands are up here defending yourself. His hand's going down.

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.

Erwin: Were both your hands on the weapon?

Zimmerman: No, sir.

Erwin: OK. Where was his hands, when you went to retrieve the weapon?

Zimmerman: One hand was going towards the gun. He took it off my mouth.

Erwin: Right.

Zimmerman: And I was trying to get his hand, he was suffocating me, so I was trying to get his hands off of my face.

Longer excerpt. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2164.msg101591.html#msg101591)
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 13, 2013, 04:03:30 AM
The screams are barely audible.

I disagree.

Quote
We don't know how many and how long the smothering incidents were. Could have been only one or two.

There is nothing in Zimmerman's statements to suggest more than one.


 
Title: Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on March 13, 2013, 05:04:11 AM
Keep in mind, that when suddenly losing the ability to inhale, the brain can go into panic thus making even a split second seem like a very long time, and can leave an impression far more significant than the moment you actually couldn't breath.

Zimmerman didn't estimate how long the suffocation lasted.

2/29-3, 27:23-35
Quote
Serino: How long did he suffocate you for? Approximately?

Zimmerman: Felt like -

Serino: It seemed like forever, I'm sure.

Zimmerman: Felt like hours, but I don't -

Serino: Don't recall? OK.

Audio (http://www.mysanfordherald.com/view/full_story/19101074/article-Video--audio-tell-George-Zimmerman%E2%80%99s-account-of-Trayvon-Martin-shooting-?instance=home_news_right)