TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Zimmerman: Police Investigation => Topic started by: TalkLeft on August 12, 2012, 12:22:28 PM

Title: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on August 12, 2012, 12:22:28 PM
This is a thread to keep track of the items we should have in discovery but as far as I know, we don't. Feel free to add to the items or, if you've seen any of them, point out where they are.

1. The full toxicology report from NMS labs. It was reviewed by Officer/Investigator Negrete on April 2 and put in the case electronic file (p. 84 of 284 page discovery.)

2. Audio recordings of 3/26 interview by state's attorney investigator O'Steen and John Guy of W1 or W2 (one of the sisters who saw a glance of one or two people running).  Witness is now saying she saw people running left to right (which from her house would be south to north.) De la Rionda keeps referring to this, yet the only audio statements provided are those by SPD and FDLE (3/1, 3/9, 3/20)  and in the 3/20 interviews they retracted this. What happened in one week to make one of them change their mind, and why don't we have the actual interview? (p. 29 of 284 page discovery)

3. DeeDee's Simple T-Mobile records. They are a pre-paid phone with no subscriber information or subscriber detail, so why are they being withheld?  They received 9 pages of call records on the phone dated Feb. 26 to April 2 in an xcel spreadsheet. (Page 83 of 284 page discovery.)

4. Audio recordings of interviews by state's attorney's office with Tracy Martin, Brandy Green, Sybrina Fulton, Chad Green. Interviews were on 3/27,  4/2 and 4/27. (in 284 page discovery)

5. The photographs of the placement of the  video cameras at the clubhouse taken by Sgt Rodrighez (p. 87-88 of 284 page discovery)

6. Audio interview of Singleton by prosecutor de la Rionda on 3/29/12 (page 34 of 284 page discovery)

7. Audio interview of Medical Investigator Tara Malphurs on 3/29 on her examination of Martin's body and removal of items at the scene.  She didn't get there until 9:44 pm, and left at 10:10.  (p. 35 of 284.)

8. Audio interviews of Selma Mora (and maybe Mary Cutcher) on 3/27/12 by SAO investigator O’Steen, Bernie de la Rionda and John Guy  in which they say they heard 2 "whines" and saw nothing before shot. (page 30)

9. Audio interview of W-3 on 3/27/12 by O'Steen and Guy in which she says the guy in the white t-shirt was on top during the struggle and the guy in the white t-shirt is the one she saw dead, laying on the ground. (284 page discovery)

10. Audio interview of Austin McClendan on  3/27 by O’Steen, De la Rionda and John Guy, in which he again says the guy he saw injured on the ground wore a red shirt. (lawyer or mother called back later to say he thought he had to say that to be consistent with his first statements but he didn't see it.) (p. 33 of 284 page discovery)

11. Reports of analysis of cell phone records. Surely they must have written reports showing relevant calls and times to and from TM's phone and DeeDee's  phone. They can redact numbers for privacy.

12. A better audio of Dee Dee's call with Crump/Guttman. The snippets ABC played on the air are clear. The version supplied in discovery is inaudible. See Diwataman  (http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/examining-w8-crump-interview/)on this, he thinks the one provided was altered to a different format to purposely be inaudible and he makes a good case.

13. Question: Wouldn't the state have subpoenaed the Fox News footage of the scene the night of the shooting? If not, why not? If so, they should have turned it over in discovery and we should have it. If they didn't, I hope O'Mara does and turns it over in reciprocal discovery.

Added:

14. The actual timestamps for the various 911 calls

15. Witness 6 (John's) diagram as to the positions and movements of GZ and TM when he saw them struggling. Contained in his .March 20 interview with FDLE investigator John Bachelor.

16.  Affidavit for Search Warrant for phone records (phone records are being withheld, but a redacted version of the Affidavit could be released.

17. Audio Interview of 7/11 clerk (p. 69 of 284 page discovery.)
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on August 12, 2012, 02:06:58 PM
14. The stain maps from FDLE's biology lab for Zimmerman's and Martin's clothing.

15. The results of SPD's internal investigation of leaks - how the evidence items were accessed and by whom.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 02:27:00 PM
Video from the surveillance camera covering the intersection (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630845830014/) of Rinehart Rd. and Towne Center Blvd.

Possibly other missing video, from businesses in the area, or cameras at The Retreat at Twin Lakes clubhouse.

I can't find it now, but Jeralyn posted a comment somewhere pointing out that reports mention some clubhouse cameras which were not described as inoperable, and yet their video has not been released.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: MJW on August 12, 2012, 02:48:01 PM
Possibly other missing video, from businesses in the area, or cameras at The Retreat at Twin Lakes clubhouse.

That's an interesting point. A report on page 19 of the 2nd discovery PDF mentions that Det. Lonnie Taylor collected videos from businesses in what ended up being in the wrong direction from Martin's route. I think it's likely that either someone else collected videos from the other direction, or Taylor had some particular reason for choosing the direction he did. There are quite a few businesses near the 7-Eleven.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: MJW on August 12, 2012, 02:54:34 PM
I'd like to see Zimmerman's phone records. Particularly the exact time he placed the NEN call. That would answer the question of whether there was a significant delay from the time he placed the call to when he was connected to Sean.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 03:01:14 PM
I think it's likely that either someone else collected videos from the other direction, or Taylor had some particular reason for choosing the direction he did.

The former seems more likely to me. If that is true, then that investigator's report is also missing.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: MJW on August 12, 2012, 03:22:53 PM
I'd also like to see the report by the officer who ran the tags of vehicles parked along the roadside after the shooting. That's mentioned on page 16 of the 1st discovery PDF.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on August 12, 2012, 03:23:55 PM
I was just re-reading Singleton's  interviews with him. It seems to me GZ drew his own map during the first interview with her, and that in the second interview, she hands him her  google map to draw x's on. I don't think we've seen his drawing.

From the first interview:

Quote
DS: Okay. Was it one of the houses along the wall. I don’t know where this happened, so
GZ: No, ma’am, uh uh. Would you like me to draw it for you?
DS: Yeah, sure, you can do that.
GZ: The neighborhood is kinda like a square. Like this. And then, um, there’s a row of houses here. This is the wall and there’s houses here and there’s another row of houses here. And this is houses. I parked my car here, the mailboxes here. He went through this dog walk here and you can either go down the sidewalk here between this row of houses, or you can go straight through.
DS: Okay.
GZ: To this street. So this is, um, asphalt, I’m sorry my hand…
DS: That’s okay.
GZ: This is asphalt and, ah

***********

DS: Is there…are you sure…is it a patio, that he’s hitting? Cause you said he’s hitting your head on a sidewalk.
GZ: No, no, it’s the sidewalk. It’s…
DS: But it’s the sidewalk behind the building?
GZ: Yes, ma’am, it’s a dog walk…
DS: Okay.
GZ: And this is a row of houses, and this is a row of houses…
DS: Okay.
GZ: And this is the dog walk.
DS: Okay.
GZ: So I walked back here, he hit me…

From the second interview:

Quote
DS: I just wanna ask you a few more questions.
GZ: Yes ma’am.
DS: Um, this is, ah, the neighborhood we’re talking about, right?
GZ: Yes, ma’am.
DS: Okay, can you put, ah, an “x” on here where you first saw the guy?
GZ: Right…right about here.
DS: Okay, right about there. Okay, and this is the, this is the entrance, correct?
GZ: Yes, ma’am.
 

It sounds to me like he drew  on blank paper during the first interview and the map was brought out during the second interview.  I'd like to see his drawing. Has anyone seen it?
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 03:29:53 PM
It sounds to me like he drew  on blank paper during the first interview and the map was brought out during the second interview.

That's been my impression since the first time I listened to the recording.

I haven't seen the drawing in the discovery. I think I would have noticed if it was there.

Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 09:01:55 PM
I can't find it now, but Jeralyn posted a comment somewhere pointing out that reports mention some clubhouse cameras which were not described as inoperable, and yet their video has not been released.

Found it. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2094.450.html)
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 12, 2012, 10:53:41 PM
I want to see the ballistics and the trajectory reports.  And I want  to know if that handgun was field stripped for additional swabbings.  I am particularly interested in the slide area.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: unitron on August 13, 2012, 12:56:07 AM
I doubt anyone bothered, but I'd like to know if it's ever been established if the can was still in the bag when the can was found in the hoodie pocket.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: AJ on August 13, 2012, 02:12:01 AM
I'm missing an interview from Mr. Zimmerman on 3/28 - the one that Serino set up with him over the phone on 3/26 for the following Wednesday. This phone call was the last interview that I have of Mr. Zimmerman. The one that I'm missing is the one where either BDLR is conducting the interview or listening while another conducts. Did I miss it somewhere or was it not released?
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 13, 2012, 02:19:29 AM
I don't think that interview ever happened.

I recall something in the July 12 release about SAO playing phone tag with Zimmerman and one of the first lawyers who not-so-much represented him.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 13, 2012, 02:45:59 AM
It's p. 38 of the July 12 release. (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)

This was about events on 4/10. Zimmerman spoke with de la Rionda on the phone. He said that Sonner and Uhrig were advising him but not representing him. He agreed to be interviewed, and it was agreed that Investigator O'Steen would call Zimmerman later.

I haven't seen anything in the discovery about a follow-up to the 4/10 calls, and I don't recall anything about a 3/28 interview.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on August 13, 2012, 03:43:34 AM
The actual timestamps for the various 911 calls would be very helpful in establishing a timeline for events.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: unitron on August 13, 2012, 02:00:15 PM
What I'd love to see are accurate to the second records for Trayvon's calls and for the young lady's calls (and if they don't match I'll be reminded of the apocryphal Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times"), as well as exact times and text of text messages, and all of George's to the second phone records as well, plus texts, if any.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 14, 2012, 07:22:28 AM
Was there ever an actual bond application?  The only thing I had ever seen is that Jail Intake form, filled out by the interviewer and signed by George Zimmerman.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 14, 2012, 08:51:39 PM
I was reading the transcript of W2 (John) interview with John Bachelor.  He also drew a diagram as to the positions and movements of GZ and TM.  He labeled it 1 and 2, using his house for a reference point. 

So where is that diagram?

 
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/writ/appendix_1.pdf  (page 37)
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on August 14, 2012, 09:00:13 PM
I was reading the transcript of W2 (John) interview with John Bachelor.  He also drew a diagram as to the positions and movements of GZ and TM.  He labeled it 1 and 2, using his house for a reference point. 
So where is that diagram? http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/writ/appendix_1.pdf  (page 37)

Thanks, I forgot that one and it's really one I'd like to see too. I'm going to add it to the main list I started (as well as some others commenters here have pointed out.)
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 14, 2012, 09:04:30 PM
I was reading the transcript of W2 (John) interview with John Bachelor.  He also drew a diagram as to the positions and movements of GZ and TM.  He labeled it 1 and 2, using his house for a reference point. 

So where is that diagram?

 
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/writ/appendix_1.pdf  (page 37)

Good catch.

But John is W-6. W-2 is the lady who glanced out the window without her contacts.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 14, 2012, 10:12:18 PM
Good catch.

But John is W-6. W-2 is the lady who glanced out the window without her contacts.

I knew that...  I was just seeing if you were on your toes tonite!  LOL!  He was the second person interviewed or something like that.  I picked it up wrong.  Seriously, I just downloaded Appendix 3 and my computer froze up.  I was up to about page 285 or so.  I really need a different computer. 

((tears out hair))

Do you remember if it was the June 1 hearing that de la Rionda admitted that TM struck GZ.  I remember he was having a hissy-fit at the time and said it kind of in passing.  Maybe towards the end of the hearing?  That is what I am trying to find.  I might be remembering incorrectly but he said something to that effect and I remember thinking at the time that I was willing to bet he wished he hadn't said that out loud.

I blame old age and lack of medications....
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 15, 2012, 12:03:36 AM
List of things I am finding, let's add one more.

Appendix 2 page 64

There is a series of composites that MOM is admitting into evidence.  In Composite 2, he describes the photos of GZ's injuries.  He includes the well known ABC shot, and the evidence pictures taken at the station.

There is a third composite that he describes on pg 64 at the very top of the page.

Quote
This is actually my third exhibit that I would like you to consider which is a cell phone video that was taken by the witness at the scene and directly after the injury.  It is significant to the extent that it shows the injuries to my client's nose and the blood around the nose and mouth. 

The State didn't object because they had already seen it.

WTH?  What video? 

The part that jumps out is that there is a video record of the injuries and blood on GZs face.  The one witness had taken three pictures with his iPhone, GZ's head, TM's body in situ, and the flashlight.   I remember the grainy B/W that was taken while GZ was in the patrol car but that was a still and he had already been cleaned up by EMT's, IIRC.  The officer forgot he had taken the picture or something.  I remember it didn't get turned in right away but a few days later.

Is the witness a civilian or LE?  Is the grainy shot of GZ in the back of a patrol car taken as a still from a video?  Is he mischaracterizing a photo as a video?

Curious...
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 15, 2012, 12:43:57 AM
  Is he mischaracterizing a photo as a video?

If I had to guess, I'd go with that.

Did he say the word more than once?
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 15, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
If I had to guess, I'd go with that.

Did he say the word more than once?

Don West took over the proceedings with that EMT, Kevin O'Rourke.  He also refers to Composite 3 and shows Kevin a photo.  I assume it is the one from the patrol car.  That is when I started wondering if it is a mistaken characterization.  But who would confuse a video with a still?  It doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 15, 2012, 01:25:07 AM
But who would confuse a video with a still? 

Slip of the tongue. It's the kind of mistake anyone might make, especially if they spend the whole day talking.

I recall O'Mara getting at least one of the witness numbers wrong.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: unitron on August 15, 2012, 04:10:36 AM
List of things I am finding, let's add one more.

Appendix 2 page 64

There is a series of composites that MOM is admitting into evidence.  In Composite 2, he describes the photos of GZ's injuries.  He includes the well known ABC shot, and the evidence pictures taken at the station.

There is a third composite that he describes on pg 64 at the very top of the page.

The State didn't object because they had already seen it.

WTH?  What video? 

The part that jumps out is that there is a video record of the injuries and blood on GZs face.  The one witness had taken three pictures with his iPhone, GZ's head, TM's body in situ, and the flashlight.   I remember the grainy B/W that was taken while GZ was in the patrol car but that was a still and he had already been cleaned up by EMT's, IIRC.  The officer forgot he had taken the picture or something.  I remember it didn't get turned in right away but a few days later.

Is the witness a civilian or LE?  Is the grainy shot of GZ in the back of a patrol car taken as a still from a video?  Is he mischaracterizing a photo as a video?

Curious...

"The part that jumps out is that there is a video record of the injuries and blood on GZs face. "

Perhaps it would be better to refer to that as a photographic record (unless there's actual motion capturing video of which I'm completely unaware).

I think it was W13 who was putting together furniture who comes out and talks ammo size and uses his iPhone to get the shot of the back of Zimmerman's head while Zimmerman is on the phone with someone, a shot of Trayvon's possibly not yet dead but neither of them could be bothered to call an ambulance body, and a shot of the larger flashlight which was found near the body.

Then Smith comes up and he has to back off.

Later a police officer (not among the very first to arrive) uses his own cell phone to take the picture of Zimmerman in the back of the police car and a picture of the body (which by then had already been turned over by the second and third officers to arrive).
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: unitron on August 15, 2012, 04:14:57 AM
I knew that...  I was just seeing if you were on your toes tonite!  LOL!  He was the second person interviewed or something like that.  I picked it up wrong.  Seriously, I just downloaded Appendix 3 and my computer froze up.  I was up to about page 285 or so.  I really need a different computer. 

((tears out hair))

Do you remember if it was the June 1 hearing that de la Rionda admitted that TM struck GZ.  I remember he was having a hissy-fit at the time and said it kind of in passing.  Maybe towards the end of the hearing?  That is what I am trying to find.  I might be remembering incorrectly but he said something to that effect and I remember thinking at the time that I was willing to bet he wished he hadn't said that out loud.

I blame old age and lack of medications....

Jeralyn included the line in a post a while back, but I haven't been able to find it recently, but at some point (and I think it was the original bond hearing with half the Zimmerman family on the phone) BdlR says that Martin struck Zimmmerman "at some point".

Contrary to what some, even more elsewhere than here, like to believe, this is not the same as saying Martin struck first, or Martin attacked.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: FromBelow on August 15, 2012, 04:16:59 AM
Speaking of the picture of the back of GZ's head, aren't there supposed to be others the same witness took? I seem to recall mention of more of them. Were they released? I guess the body was another, but I'd be clicking away. I'm guessing there are actually quite a few more.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: FromBelow on August 15, 2012, 04:25:16 AM
Do you remember if it was the June 1 hearing that de la Rionda admitted that TM struck GZ.  I remember he was having a hissy-fit at the time and said it kind of in passing.  Maybe towards the end of the hearing?  That is what I am trying to find.  I might be remembering incorrectly but he said something to that effect and I remember thinking at the time that I was willing to bet he wished he hadn't said that out loud.

I blame old age and lack of medications....

"And at some point the victim does hit him." 2:22 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjX0bQR5INg&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: FromBelow on August 15, 2012, 05:37:42 AM
I apologize if this was mentioned, but shouldn't there be audio samples from Trayvon for voice comparison? I think this has been asked elsewhere, but why have we never heard his voice?

EDIT: And yes, I know that TM couldn't give a voice sample after death. No voice mail? Videos? Nothing? Was there any mention of investigators attempting to get voice samples of him? It would seem pretty important considering how significant who was screaming is. I think there would be some mention.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: unitron on August 15, 2012, 06:26:53 AM
Didn't a cop ask one of neighbors to take photos because his cell phone was not working?

What I saw in one of the reports was that a department camera, not a cell phone, was not there or wasn't working right, and that's why the officer used his own cell phone, which I think I remember him uploading the photos to his department laptop but forgetting to report it for a day or so.

I don't think there's any confirmation anywhere of an officer asking a civilian to take pictures.

That would be a chain of evidence nightmare, I'd think.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 15, 2012, 06:44:53 AM
I apologize if this was mentioned, but shouldn't there be audio samples from Trayvon for voice comparison?

The Martins say they don't have any.

The standard for getting a warrant is probable cause. Investigators would need some evidence the Martins are lying, enough to meet probable cause, to get a warrant to search their premises.

Serving such a warrant would be a PR nightmare. They might hesitate to do it even if they have probable cause.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: FromBelow on August 15, 2012, 06:56:19 AM
The Martins say they don't have any.

Offhand do you remember where you saw this?
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 15, 2012, 07:01:30 AM
Offhand do you remember where you saw this?

I saw Charles Blow on Lawrence O'Donnel's show talking about it.(early April?)
He'd gotten the info first hand from Sybrina Fulton. Blow seemed supportive but skeptical.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 15, 2012, 08:19:33 AM
I saw Charles Blow on Lawrence O'Donnel's show talking about it.(early April?)

Thank you.

Transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46966562/ns/msnbc/t/last-word-lawrence-odonnell-monday-april/#.UCuu1qPvhac)
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on August 15, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
With modern teenagers, I find it odd that there wouldn't be be some video on Trayvon's computer or one of his friend's computers or on Facebook or twitter. Of course if there was video, I would have expected someone would have sold it by now. There seems to be plenty of still pictures of him.

You can actually hear Trayvon talking on the 7-11 video, but the only think I conclude from that is that he doesn't sound like a young boy.

Please don't get into a discussion of where you can find Trayvon videos. Stick to the missing discovery please.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: Redbrow on August 15, 2012, 02:57:25 PM
There have been conflicting reports of how DeeDee's phone call was discovered. Natalie Jackson stated it was discovered by a hired private investigator.

1. Who discovered the phone record? Copies of the investigator's reports.
2. When was the phone record discovered?
3. Who first contacted DeeDee? DeeDee's phone records. All recordings of conversations with DeeDee.
4. When was DeeDee first contacted? All relevant phone records.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
I want to see a photo of the earphones/headphones.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: unitron on August 16, 2012, 11:12:30 PM
Please don't get into a discussion of where you can find Trayvon videos. Stick to the missing discovery please.

Is this thread for stuff we know they have but that we haven't yet seen, or is it elastic enough for

1.  Stuff they might have but haven't yet revealed that they do or don't have.

2.  Stuff we think they should have gathered and/or stuff we wish they had gathered.

?

Note I'm only talking about stuff that actually exists, not stuff like a recording of all of both parties' telephone calls or a high-res video of the struggle or traffic copter video of everywhere Zimmerman's truck went all that day.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on August 16, 2012, 11:54:14 PM
Is this thread for stuff we know they have but that we haven't yet seen, or is it elastic enough for

1.  Stuff they might have but haven't yet revealed that they do or don't have.

2.  Stuff we think they should have gathered and/or stuff we wish they had gathered.

Note I'm only talking about stuff that actually exists, not stuff like a recording of all of both parties' telephone calls or a high-res video of the struggle or traffic copter video of everywhere Zimmerman's truck went all that day.

It's for things they have disclosed exist but have not been provided. It's not for what we think they should have gotten, things we don't know if they got, or we wish they got. It's for things mentioned in reports, at hearings or in pleadings so we know they have them.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: unitron on August 17, 2012, 12:11:33 AM
It's for things they have disclosed exist but have not been provided. It's not for what we think they should have gotten, things we don't know if they got, or we wish they got. It's for things mentioned in reports, at hearings or in pleadings so we know they have them.

Thank you for the clarification.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: turbo6 on August 22, 2012, 09:25:08 PM
So there was an audio interview with the 7-11 clerk? Anyone have any idea on the date it was recorded?

I'd be interested in hearing it, granted if it was done shortly after the shooting. Not so much if it was after it made national news.

Based on some of his mannerisms in the video, I would imagine his unbiased thoughts on TM wouldn't be particularly favorable to the prosecutors.

Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on August 22, 2012, 10:05:53 PM
So there was an audio interview with the 7-11 clerk? Anyone have any idea on the date it was recorded?

I'd be interested in hearing it, granted if it was done shortly after the shooting. Not so much if it was after it made national news. Based on some of his mannerisms in the video, I would imagine his unbiased thoughts on TM wouldn't be particularly favorable to the prosecutors.

7/11 clerk's recorded interview was on March 29, done by FDLE. See page 69 of the 284 page discovery. He did not remember Trayvon or his interaction with him, even after being shown his picture.

Please discuss the interview in another thread, this is just for pointing out missing evidence.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on August 22, 2012, 11:27:15 PM
If you're going to remove my rebuttal, please remove turbo6' unfounded insinuation.

No. He asked a question about the audio and where it was located.

Quote
So there was an audio interview with the 7-11 clerk? Anyone have any idea on the date it was recorded?

You can respond to his characterization in a thread discussing the content. I  don't like to edit people's comments (as opposed to delete) except to make technical changes (coding, etc.)
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 23, 2012, 08:26:15 AM
In a Mar 5th request from Officer Santiago, Tracy Martin wouldn't give them access to TM's phone without first discussing it with Crump.

Did the SPD ever get a search warrant to access that phone or the phone records?  Who has the phone currently?
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 23, 2012, 08:46:00 AM
Did the SPD ever get a search warrant to access that phone or the phone records? 

Not before they declared the investigation complete. I think what they asked for was a subpoena, not a warrant.

If the order was granted eventually, I guess it would be transferable to SAO/FDLE, as the authorities currently investigating the case, rather than them having to start the process over from scratch.

Early in his interview of Dee Dee, de la Rionda said something about having all the phone records.

Quote
Who has the phone currently?

I don't know, but I know of no reason to think it isn't with the other evidence. Evidence in a criminal case typically isn't released until the case is resolved.

I'm guessing it's all still in the SPD evidence lock-up. SAO/FDLE had to go to Sanford to interview witnesses, so they could look at evidence at the same time. Every time evidence is moved it complicates the chain of custody, and there's a chance of something getting lost. I wouldn't expect evidence to be moved until it's needed in court.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 30, 2012, 06:04:44 AM
I am not sure where to post this so if it is wrong, I apologize in advance.

Did the FBI ever interview Barns, Villanova or Perkins?  Serino thought that the source of leaks was from the SPD and felt pressured by them to file charges against Zimmerman very early on in the investigation.

Isn't the DOJ investigating the SPD?  I am not sure if they are investigating them or if they are investigating GZ.  Sorry but I am confused.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 31, 2012, 10:58:17 PM
Did the State subpoena the ABC interview with Dee Dee since what was released was mostly unintelligible?

As pointed out, MOM should be able to get a clear copy.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on September 02, 2012, 12:49:53 PM
In a Mar 5th request from Officer Santiago, Tracy Martin wouldn't give them access to TM's phone without first discussing it with Crump. Did the SPD ever get a search warrant to access that phone or the phone records?  Who has the phone currently?

Yes, it appears there was a search warrant but we haven't seen it -- or the actual phone records it prodcued.

See page 7 of State's Redacted Discovery  Exhibit  (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/CJC3rdFlCScan20120515084012.pdf)for the list of phone records obtained with dates and type of records.  Then look at page 3 of the States Redacted Second Discovery Exhibit (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/redacted%20second%20discovery.pdf) where under section K it lists the search warrant and return for  telephone records and Tracy Martin's phone records from 1/1/12 to 3/1/12.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 13, 2012, 11:34:15 PM
I would like to know if W18's interview with the PI hired by Crump is part of the discovery being released.

According to the redacted Witness and Evidence list, they had the 911 call, a written statement to Officer Mead, and the audio from Serino, all from 2/26th.

In the 4/2/12 interview with Gilbreath, there is a mention of W18 and her attorney contacting Crump's office.  There is a written statement taken by the PI on 3/16th.

Attorney for W18 (Brett?) was upset that Natalie Jackson had supplied that statement to LE when it was not supposed to be.  Why would a witness give a statement to the TM lawyers with the expressed concern that it not be made available to LE?

I don't understand nor do I understand a witness that gets a lawyer...

Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on September 26, 2012, 07:06:10 AM
Didn't the State enter the My Space page that was Zimmerman's in 2005?  Where is the subpoena for that to verify, if that is the case?
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on September 29, 2012, 06:06:26 AM

Two photos of Zimmerman's bare arms, showing no defensive wounds, seem to have been shown to Zimmerman by Serino, along with some other photos. I've listed ten, possibly all of them, in a comment (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2197.0.html) beginning a new thread.

Serino seemed to be discussing the pictures of Zimmerman's arms, beginning about 12:07 and 16:12 on the recording of part 1 of the 2/29 interview.

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: Missing Discovery
Post by: TalkLeft on October 20, 2012, 04:11:11 PM
Can you please not link to a blatant anti-Zimmerman site with popups asking for money? Those interviews are available on multiple sites, and I prefer not to send readers there.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on October 20, 2012, 06:05:53 PM

Two more missing drawings are Selma Mora's and Mary Cutcher's, made during their 3/2 SPD interviews.

Mora (http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/zimmermanevidence/audio/W16_SPD03022012.wav)

Cutcher (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVM9Ar0-w0M&feature=relmfu)

There you are. Same comment, different links. Please delete the other one.
Title: Re: Missing Discovery
Post by: DebFrmHell on November 04, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
I was reading some more of the interviews done by the SAO.  Officer Wagner took pictures of both Martin and Zimmerman and used them to see if anyone could ID either individuals.

Would Officer Wagner have a separate CD since he took those pictures with his camera phone?