TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Daily Trial Proceedings => Topic started by: RickyJim on June 21, 2013, 08:12:12 AM

Title: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 21, 2013, 08:12:12 AM
Apparently nobody here decided to blog live.  I was listening and remember:Please feel free to add or correct.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 08:17:15 AM
We started new threads simultaneously. I'll re-post here, and Jeralyn can delete the other one. (I tried to delete, but it seems the software won't let us do that for the only post in a thread.)

Judge Nelson adjourned around 9:30 or 9:40.

Mantei agreed that Zimmerman was appointed captain of the NW, and was out of the car when the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow, and said he didn't intend to say otherwise.

Nelson accepted the assurance, and ruled the prosecution could not claim 'racial profiling', but were free to claim profiling of any other kind. She denied defense motion as to the other inflammatory terms.

I didn't hear any mention of Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Spectators From Wearing Items That Depict Support. (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/motion_to_prohibit.pdf) Has there been a ruling on that, which I missed? I thought the state might stipulate to it, but I haven't heard that either.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: cboldt on June 21, 2013, 08:49:07 AM
Apparently nobody here decided to blog live.  I was listening and remember:
  • Judge will release her Frey decision later today in writing.  I deduced it will be today since she said she doesn't have a fax machine at home.
  • There are 220 witnesses listed to testify.  ???
  • The states "case" is that Zimmerman confronted Martin and they have evidence to support that.  :o
  • A prosecution witness, a professor at a community college, will be deposed by the prosecution and defense and that deposition will be played for the jury.  Professor will be unavailable during the trial.
Please feel free to add or correct.

On the "no fax machine," West suggested that the parties could be apprised of the opinion via e-mail or fax.  She never claimed she didn't have e-mail.

As to the "perpetuated testimony" of Zimmerman's professor, the deposition and the trial testimony are separate items.  Nelson said the defense could depose him, then do its research, then (later the same day), conduct what amounts to trial testimony.  Trial testimony is started by the state (state's witness), cross exam by the defense.  The deposition is reverse of that, direct exam of state's witness by the defense.

She refused to relax authentication of contents of Martin's phone, until a specific piece of evidence is proffered during the trial.

I agree with your contention that she plans to issue her Frye ruling today.  Her remark that "it would have to wait until Monday" was her describing the consequences of having to hold a hearing this afternoon on the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule against admissibility.

Edit to add: I listened and audio recorded the session.  I didn't start a live remark thread, preferring to wait to see where the discussion starts, and then adding to it.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 08:56:43 AM
The states "case" is that Zimmerman confronted Martin

That's not much of a case, since 'confronting' is not an element of murder in the second degree. (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html)
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: cboldt on June 21, 2013, 09:03:54 AM
That's not much of a case, since 'confronting' is not an element of murder in the second degree. (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html)

Maybe another way to look at Nelson's remark is that if the state doesn't produce evidence that Zimmerman confronted, then the state doesn't have a case.  Not that confronting is an element, but if there is no Zimmerman-initiated confrontation, then there is no murder.

I don't think that conclusion is technically correct, as Zimmerman can murder even if he doesn't do the confronting.  My take on the remark was just that it was a window into how Nelson perceives the state's narrative, for whatever that is worth.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 21, 2013, 09:10:45 AM
Nelson was just repeating what Guy had said about the state's case to justify them using "confronted" in their opening statement.  Can anyone dig up the exact quote?  Apparently they now have more evidence of confronting than Dale Gilbreath knew about when he testified the bond hearing.  Well, enough to keep us guessing until Monday.  ;)
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 09:25:24 AM
Nelson was just repeating what Guy had said about the state's case to justify them using "confronted" in their opening statement.  Can anyone dig up the exact quote?  Apparently they now have more evidence of confronting than Dale Gilbreath knew about when he testified the bond hearing.  Well, enough to keep us guessing until Monday.  ;)

I think it's this 'letter'. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/8599626143/lightbox/) They say they didn't know about it until it came up at W-8's deposition, and it is further corroboration that Martin spoke to Zimmerman after Zimmerman got close to  him. I think it's called 'confronting from behind'.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 21, 2013, 09:33:28 AM
There is nothing about confronting in the self defense instruction that Nelson has read twice already to the jury.  Is the confronting just part of the Murder2 case?
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
Fans of Nelson/West should have the popcorn ready when they watch the video. He was on her last nerve today. She was closer to losing it than I've ever seen.

She seems frazzled over pulling everything together in time for trial. Her own fault for denying a continuance.

I think she's anxious about the Frye ruling. Whatever she has decided, I think she's expecting criticism, and wants to make sure her own arguments are solid.

West had prepared some kind of summary of the Frye evidence that he thought would be helpful. When Nelson said she had what she needed, and no time for new reading material, he wouldn't take 'no' for an answer.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 21, 2013, 10:34:10 AM
I take her performance as meaning, "Cut it out, I am not letting Owen and Reich in so stop pestering me with this stuff and let me write my decision".  Well we should find out soon.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: leftwig on June 21, 2013, 11:23:28 AM
If I knew nothing else of judge Nelson prior to this exchange on the expert witnesses, I might buy that she was just trying to cut him off because she's already decided to rule in his favor.  Taken in the context of actions within the past year, I have little confidence that this is the case. 
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 12:11:16 PM
I think the community college professor is the first clear indication I have seen that the prosecution intends to make an issue of Zimmerman's character or predisposition.

I think he would be available in the first few days of the trial, if the prosecution wanted to use him then. That is from the dates I heard, and some of Nelson's remarks. But they want to use his testimony when it fits in their presentation.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 12:27:38 PM
Zimmerman wasn't present at the hearing, Nelson having agreed his attendance was unnecessary. The WFTV talking heads said that neither Martin's nor Zimmerman's parents were there. I briefly saw someone I thought might be Robert Jr., but I could easily have been wrong.

Mantei raised a couple of logistical matters, which he called 'housekeeping'.

The defense and prosecution had gotten together and agreed on a list of evidence that both thought to be admissible. They had asked the clerk for tags to label them, and she had declined for reasons not clear. Nelson asked the clerk what she needed, and she said just an order from the judge, which was granted.

In passing, I learned that the agreed on items would be labeled with numbers, while items whose admissibility was still in dispute would be labeled with letters.

Mantei wanted to seat the jury in two rows of five. The defense did not object, and Nelson so ordered.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: MJW on June 21, 2013, 01:50:55 PM
I think the community college professor is the first clear indication I have seen that the prosecution intends to make an issue of Zimmerman's character or predisposition.

I think he would be available in the first few days of the trial, if the prosecution wanted to use him then. That is from the dates I heard, and some of Nelson's remarks. But they want to use his testimony when it fits in their presentation.

If that's the purpose of his testimony, I expect the defense will argue vigorously to exclude it. As discussed in Rogers v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17602887078822358839&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 511 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1987):

Quote
Extrinsic evidence of reputation is properly admitted when both the witness and the object of the testimony are members of the same general community of neighbors and associates. Reputation testimony is also permissible when members of that community are demonstrably unavailable if the trial court finds that the witness has sufficient knowledge to give a reliable assessment based on more than mere personal opinion, fleeting encounters, or rumor.

Assuming the professor's contacts with GZ are through his teaching profession, he's not a member of the "same general community of neighbors and associates." The state clearly won't be able to establish that "members of that community are demonstrably unavailable," given that Zimmerman lived in a stable community and his neighbors and associates were interviewed by the police and FBI. I would be surprised if someone whose relationship with Zimmerman was as a professor could offer more than "mere personal opinion, fleeting encounters, or rumor."
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
If that's the purpose of his testimony, I expect the defense will argue vigorously to exclude it.

What else might he testify to?
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: MJW on June 21, 2013, 02:43:12 PM
I don't think "the witness is going to be out of state" without more cuts it as justification for a deposition to perpetuate testimony. In Knox v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12636508668831831337&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 98 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) the court reversed when the trial court allowed a deposition to perpetuate testimony from an out-of-state witness who claimed traveling to Florida would be an economic hardship.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: MJW on June 21, 2013, 02:48:19 PM
The state's motion (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/State%27s%20Motion%20for%20Depo%20to%20Perpetuate%20Testimony.pdf) is now on the court website. The witness's name is Gordon Pleasance.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: who007 on June 21, 2013, 03:01:16 PM
What else might he testify to?
I'm guessing the classes he taught GZ in, re: Criminal Justice, perhaps his knowledge of SYG, etc...

The name is  "Gordon Pleasants"

Seminole State College of Florida Professor

CJE 2566 Teaches Introduction to Domestic Violence, Stalking.../ Intro to Law.

https://www.myedu.com/Seminole-State-Seminole-State-College-of-Florida/Pleasants-Gordon/professor/4397126/
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: MJW on June 21, 2013, 03:04:16 PM
The name is  "Gordon Pleasants"

The state can't even get his name right.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: TalkLeft on June 21, 2013, 03:04:38 PM
see my post here (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/21/15215/8596/crimenews/Zimmerman-Judge-No-Mention-of-Racial-Profiling)

He wrote an oped saying the case was political

Quote
Over the past decades we have seen hundreds of convicted persons, including those on death row, being freed based on newly discovered evidence or by misconduct by the police and/or prosecution. Part of the reason for this is the “win at all costs” attitude our judicial system has become. It isn’t always about the truth, as it is supposed to be, but in the politics (as in the Zimmerman case), the reputation and glory of getting a conviction or acquittal, and many times the honest quest to represent the victim and convict the person everyone “knows” is guilty of the crime he or she is accused of committing. (my emphasis.)
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: MJW on June 21, 2013, 03:19:50 PM
Another comment (http://www.change.org/users/11552699) made by Pleasants, which more or less supports GZ or at least GZ's right to be presumed innocent:

Quote
It seems as though all we are hearing from uninformed citizens and commissionsers is as follows:

We are angry! We want justice! We wanted Chief Lee and the Sanford Police Department to arrest and convict George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin! However, Chief Lee, who himself felt the incident was morally reprehensible, failed to do what we wanted. Therefore, the Sanford City Commission made a majority vote of “no confidence” in Chief Lee which resulted in him temporarily stepping aside.

Chief Lee did not listen to our emotions. He refused to make an arrest when the family, citizens, commissioners and press demanded it. Why do we have a chief of police if he isn’t going to perform as we dictate? The answer is easy. Chief Lee is honest and morally sound. The Chief of Police is supposed to ensure the rights of the citizens are protected during criminal investigations. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that includes the suspect in this case. Chief Lee has an obligation to ensure a thorough investigation is conducted, ensure the rights of the suspect are not violated and to present the case to the State Attorney’s Office for determining prosecution; not determine guilt as many of have already done without a trial. Chief Lee has been the only person in Sanford who has stood up for the rights we cherish. The only problem is we tend to only want these rights to apply to “us” and not those we “think” are guilty.

Gordon Pleasants

Retired Casselberry Police Lieutenant and current Professor of Criminal Justice
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: MJW on June 21, 2013, 03:28:00 PM
Did the defense oppose taking a deposition to perpetuate testimony?
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: cboldt on June 21, 2013, 03:31:10 PM
Did the defense oppose taking a deposition to perpetuate testimony?

I don't think so.  O'Mara complained about not having enough time to do depo, investigate, then have the deposition to perpetuate; and he did raise a point that part of his deposition was to discern the justification the witness would state for being unavailable (that gap you identified).  But from my recollection, he didn't assert a formal objection.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: who007 on June 21, 2013, 03:34:05 PM
Another comment (http://www.change.org/users/11552699) made by Pleasants, which more or less supports GZ or at least GZ's right to be presumed innocent:

I just saw that. He clearly supported Bill Lee and the SPD.

Curious that he also signed this petition:


Repeal Florida’s reckless “shoot first” law that shields Trayvon’s killer

    Gordon Pleasants signed the petition
    about 1 year ago

Repeal Florida’s reckless “shoot first” law that shields Trayvon’s killer (http://www.change.org/petitions/repeal-florida-s-reckless-shoot-first-law-that-shields-trayvon-s-killer)


http://www.change.org/users/11552699
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: cboldt on June 21, 2013, 03:43:10 PM
Repeal Florida’s reckless “shoot first” law that shields Trayvon’s killer

    Gordon Pleasants signed the petition

I don't think the state wants to argue against the law.  That petition is pretty whacked out, too.

By sharp contrast, many “shoot first” laws permit the use of deadly force for self-defense in public places and shift the burden to prosecutors to show that the use of force was unreasonable.


As far as I know, Ohio is the odd duck when it comes to self defense, and requires defendant to obtain a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail on self defense.  Every other state has, for a long time, had the burden on the prosecution to show the use of force in self defense was not justified.

This guy has signed on to and supported some petitions that are at odds with one another.  Not that it has any relevance at all for this case, just an observation about the professor.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: MJW on June 21, 2013, 03:43:30 PM
I don't think so.

Thanks. The various things I read were confusing on that point because they didn't clearly distinguish between the discovery deposition and the deposition to perpetuate testimony.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: MJW on June 21, 2013, 03:47:07 PM
I just saw that. He clearly supported Bill Lee and the SPD.

Curious that he also signed this petition:

One of those things that make to go "hmm..."
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 03:59:50 PM
But from my recollection, he didn't assert a formal objection.

I thought he was asking Nelson to delay ruling on the motion until he had done a discovery deposition.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 04:06:38 PM
The state can't even get his name right.

He's not the first.

The name of Tara Malphurs was spelled 'Malphrus' on a Notice of Deposition. (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/depositions/notice_of_deposition_on_11.20.12.pdf) That spelling is all over the internet now.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: cboldt on June 21, 2013, 04:07:18 PM
I thought he was asking Nelson to delay ruling on the motion until he had done a discovery deposition.

I agree.  He didn't claim to have a basis, other than time, to object to the motion.  He thought he might learn a reason to object during a discovery deposition.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 04:46:51 PM

Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ohcV83W8EIA) of the 6/21 session.


I'm thinking we're all just going to have to wait until Monday for a Frye ruling. Blame West.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 21, 2013, 05:27:22 PM
The state's motion (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/State%27s%20Motion%20for%20Depo%20to%20Perpetuate%20Testimony.pdf) is now on the court website. The witness's name is Gordon Pleasance.

The motion cites 3.190(j) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. (http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/BDFE1551AD291A3F85256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf) Rule 3.190(j) is on p. 92, but I think the paragraph they have in mind is 3.190(i) in the linked version of the document, p. 91. Rule 3.190(j) applies to cases with a victim who is either elderly, or under 16.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 22, 2013, 07:46:34 AM
Mantei agreed that Zimmerman was appointed captain of the NW, and was out of the car when the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow, and said he didn't intend to say otherwise.

Mantei raised a couple of logistical matters, which he called 'housekeeping'.

Sorry, both of these were actually John Guy.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 23, 2013, 03:08:45 AM
John Guy said the prosecution would not claim that Zimmerman 'profiled' Martin 'exclusively' or 'solely' because of race, and therefore their use of 'profiled' would not be 'racially charged' (Video). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ohcV83W8EIA#t=19m35s)

Until now I felt that the prosecutors were carefully avoiding any overt accusation of racial profiling. I think Guy's statement is a turning point in how they talk about the case.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 23, 2013, 04:31:14 AM
Nelson was just repeating what Guy had said about the state's case to justify them using "confronted" in their opening statement.  Can anyone dig up the exact quote?

Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ohcV83W8EIA#t=22m25s)

Quote
Guy: And the last one, he confronted, he confronted Trayvon Martin. That's the state's theory of the case. And we believe we have evidence to support that.

RJ
Quote
Apparently they now have more evidence of confronting than Dale Gilbreath knew about when he testified the bond hearing.

I don't see where you're getting that.

Quote
Well, enough to keep us guessing until Monday.  ;)

I think we'll still be guessing after Monday.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 23, 2013, 06:38:48 AM
Here is confronted back on April 20, 2012:
Quote
O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty words. O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?

GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.

O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.

GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.

O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?

GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish.

O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you?

GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question.

I guess this transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html) is the best we have for a preview of what the prosecution will say on Monday.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 23, 2013, 07:28:12 AM
Here is confronted back on April 20, 2012:

I'm familiar with that. Gilbreath gave a peculiar definition of the word 'confronted'.

On 6/22/12, Guy wasn't under questioning, and didn't talk about definitions. It's apples and oranges. I still don't understand the inference you are drawing.

 
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 23, 2013, 07:58:19 AM
The only inference is that on Monday they will claim more about the confronting than Gilbreath did. 
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 23, 2013, 08:23:37 AM
On 6/22/12, Guy wasn't under questioning, and didn't talk about definitions.

Sorry, that hearing was 6/21/13. It's in the title of the thread.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on June 23, 2013, 12:03:53 PM
Quote
GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area.


But "ended up together in that dog walk area" doesn't establish how they got there. It doesn't disprove George's version of the incident at all.

Quote
GILBREATH: According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

Which witness, though?

W11 says she heard arguing, but places where she heard the altercation start in a location that supports George.

W18 has been all over the map with her narrative in her media appearances, but she originally said "two men" were arguing in her statement, and her location supports what W11 says.

W2 originally gave the state one of its strongest pieces of evidence when she said she saw two figures running from the direction of Brandy Green's townhouse toward the top of the T.

Then she cracked and admitted she didn't have her contacts in or her glasses on, and might have seen only one person running, or possibly none. (And the structure of her townhome begs the question of how she saw what she claimed, even if she had 20/20 vision.)

But though she claims to have heard running, I don't remember that W2 ever claimed to have heard "arguing words going on", much less "between two people."

And then there's W8.  ::)

While she definitely claims she heard "arguing words going on before this incident occurred" and that "it was between two people," she claims the confrontation started while TM was "right by his Dad's house."

However, she only established this location for the start of the altercation on what must have been at least the fourth version of her narrative-- and I suspect this detail was given in the 4/2 deposition only because Team Crump had knowledge of W2's statement-- but not that she retracted it-- and intended to use that to support the claim that George chased TM from "right by his Dad's house" to the top of the T.

But even W8 places the first words of the exchange with TM, not George. And the fact that she states that TM was "right by his Dad's house" but gave no reason for why he didn't simply go inside and lock the door when he saw George approaching suggests the possibility that TM was seeking a confrontation with George.

But can W8 be used to establish anything any more? She's right up there with Reich and W2 as a witness that it would be fun to watch BDLR squirm while the holes in her credibility are exposed in detail for the jury.

So have they possibly got a previously undisclosed witness up their sleeve?
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 23, 2013, 12:26:47 PM
W18 has been all over the map with her narrative in her media appearances

I don't think I have seen all her media appearances. In those I have seen, and in her oral and written statements to investigators, my recollection is that she has been quite consistent about hearing two periods of loud, arguing voices, with silence in between.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 23, 2013, 12:31:28 PM
And then there's W8. [snip]

 she claims the confrontation started while TM was "right by his Dad's house."

W-8 never said where Martin was at the time the confrontation started.

You are cherry-picking pieces of evidence and jamming them together as it suits you.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 23, 2013, 12:34:17 PM
I suspect this detail was given in the 4/2 deposition only because Team Crump had knowledge of W2's statement-- but not that she retracted it-- and intended to use that to support the claim that George chased TM from "right by his Dad's house" to the top of the T.

I've explained before why I don't believe this theory makes sense.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on June 24, 2013, 12:17:49 AM
Quote
Quote from: Evil Chinchilla on Today at 12:03:53 PM
W18 has been all over the map with her narrative in her media appearances
I don't think I have seen all her media appearances. In those I have seen, and in her oral and written statements to investigators, my recollection is that she has been quite consistent about hearing two periods of loud, arguing voices, with silence in between.

You "cherry-picked" that quote to ignore the part wherre I continued "but she originally said "two men" were arguing in her statement".

And W18's statements have been previously described here as changing in the media retellings:

She said during the call it was too dark to make out who was who in the struggle. She changed this later in the call after she saw Zimmerman get up. She  has said both that  she didn't call 911 until after hearing the pop and that she was on the phone with them when the shot happened.

She hired a lawyer and they made the rounds on CNN, from Anderson Cooper to Ashleigh Banfield and more.
In some interviews her voice is disguised, sometimes as a male.  Her wording in her 911 call is similar to her later interviews: the "pop" sound, the thought someone might have been walking their dog in the rain, and a lot more, her description of her 911 call and what she saw, etc.  Her lawyer has been identified and given interviews.

In her 911 call, she said there were other neighbors whose porches were closer to the where the shooting occurred, who might have helped. It was too dark for her to see anyone clearly until after hearing the shot. She was so distraught during the call the dispatcher offered to send an ambulance to her house. She and her lawyer, Derek Brett of Orlando, later made the CNN rounds, with her face and voice being shielded. By then, she was convinced it was a young boy, Trayvon, who had cried out for help.

She doesn't describe the man as Hispanic in her 911 call, only in later interviews does she say she could see the man walking away was Hispanic. What she saw was Zimmerman walking away after the shot when people with flashlights had arrived on scene. She didn't even have her window open when she first heard what sounded like a scuffle before the shot. Then she turned her attention elsewhere until she heard them again. She called 911, and appears to be looking out her window describing what she is seeing. She says she heard a "pop." She wasn't sure it was a gunshot. She couldn't identify who was on top during the scuffle. She assumes it was the younger person because the older one walked away after it was over.

She is the witness who later described an "authoritative" voice. She assumes the older person has the authoritative voice. As I've said before, we've heard Zimmerman's voice, it's timid. We haven't heard Travyon's voice. She hears Zimmerman say he shot someone and surrender to police.

This is a classic case of an eyewitness memory being contaminated by post-event information, where the witness' memory of the original event is blended with information received later through the media. The result is a new memory is formed that is not accurate.

Then there's this exchange about her in the same thread:

Responding to comment on another thread.

Quote
Quote from: Juan on August 06, 2012, 01:46:47 PM

She only claims to have heard the shot fired (pop noise) while she was calling 911 & thinks she heard two shots. She can't remember if she was even still at the window when on the phone with 911 & "panicking".

That's what she told Serino the night of the shooting. Her memory, like Zimmerman's, improved with time.

See p. 90 of the May 17 release, (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf) and pp. 16-17 of the July 12 release. (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)

She also claimed to have witnessed the shooting on at least one of her CNN interviews.

Same reply as in the other thread ....

If you listen to her 911 call, she had already heard "like a bang" before her conversation with the 911 operator. She writes in her statement (5/17 release) the impossibility of her holding the phone up to the screen (for the 911 operator to hear) while watching & then hears a popping noise. An obvious misstatement of fact easily refuted by the tape of her 911 call.

Again in the 7/12 release she repeats her bogus claim of observing one on top of another & hearing the "pop" (more than one time), while on the phone with 911. The 911 tape again refutes the possibility of this happening. She is not a credible witness.

I didn't say she was.

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2045.0.html
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 24, 2013, 01:28:28 AM
Gosh, you've wasted a lot of work on points that aren't in dispute.

One thing I forgot to mention, is that W-18 on her 911 call mentioned hearing people talking, and then 'more talking voices'. I don't think W-18's later recollections are credible, but I do think the statements on her 911 call are credible.

If Gilbreath was thinking about the vocalizations described by W11 as part of the 'incident', then I think he must have meant W-18, as the only witness who heard vocalizations earlier than that. On reflection, I don't really see any reason to think he meant that, so he could have meant either W-11 or W-18.

This is the question Gilbreath was responding to.
Quote
O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

Gilbreath was not responding to a question about evidence that contradicted Zimmerman.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on June 24, 2013, 01:30:02 AM
W-8 never said where Martin was at the time the confrontation started.

You are cherry-picking pieces of evidence and jamming them together as it suits you.

Extremely lengthy, but since you're accusing me of "cherry-picking," her statement without edits:

Quote
Dee Dee: He say he lost him…breathin’ har’, you know. And I like, he goin’…so he say he lost him.  And then a couple…and then he say he right by his house…he ru’, he go’ keep ru’ ’til hi’ dad house.

BDLR:  OK, let me make sure I understand that he’s saying that he’s “right by his ass”…meaning the guy is right by Trayvon?

Dee Dee: No, he say he lost the guy…

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: And then he ran from the back…

BDLR:  Right.

Dee Dee: He say he lost him.

BDLR:  OK.

Dee Dee: He started walking back again…and I told him ‘Keep runnin’.’

BDLR:  So Trayvon said he started walking because he thought he had lost the guy.

Dee Dee: Yeah.


BDLR:  OK.

Dee Dee: I say, ‘Keep runnin’.’

BDLR:  OK.

Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house

BDLR:  OK.

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 gettin’ 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.

BDLR:  I’m sorry… Trayvon said he’s not running because…he’s not going to run he said…because you could tell he was tired?

Dee Dee: Yeah.


BDLR:  Well, how could you tell he was tired?

Dee Dee: He was breathin’ hard.

BDLR:  OK, real hard?

Dee Dee:  Real hard.

BDLR:  OK. Could you…and you may not have been able to…could you hear whether it was raining at that time or not?

Dee Dee:  It was not raining, cause I hear him OK.

BDLR:  OK, and when you’re telling him “Run, Run, Run”, are you yelling at him, or…

Dee Dee:  I was not yelling at him…[stated emphatically and with some indignation]

BDLR:  I don’t mean yelling, I mean, but were you like, were you being emphatic like…

Dee Dee:  Shouting…shouting at him, yeah.

BDLR:  OK..um…and then what happened?

Dee Dee:  And then he told me like the guy was getting close.. like.. and he told me the guy was getting real close to him.  The next I hear, “What are you following me for?”

BDLR:  OK, so let me make sure I understand this… so, Trayvon tells you the guy’s getting closer to him…

Dee Dee: Yeah.

BDLR:  …and then you hear Trayvon saying something…

Dee Dee:  Yeah.

BDLR:  And what do you hear Trayvon saying?

Dee Dee:  “Why you followin’ me for?”

BDLR:  “Why you following me for?”

Dee Dee: Yeah.

BDLR:  And then what happened?

Dee Dee: I hear this, ya know, man… it wa’ like a ol’ man…

BDLR:  OK.

Dee Dee:  …say, ‘Wha’ you doin’ aroun’ here?’ [mimicking a man's voice—lowering the pitch of her voice]

BDLR:  OK, so you could definitely tell another voice that was not Trayvon’s.

Dee Dee: Yeah, yeah…

BDLR:  And you heard this other voice say what?

Dee Dee: Yeah: “What are you doin’ aroun’ here?”

BDLR:  “What are you doing around here?”  OK.

Dee Dee:  And I call Trayvon…’Trayvon, wha’s goin’ on, wha's goin’ on?’

BDLR:  This is you saying that…

Dee Dee: Yeah.

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: Then... I callin’ him… he didn’t answer.

BDLR:  No answer from Trayvon.

Dee Dee:   Yeah... and I hear, I hear a sound like “bump.”  You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump… somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass.

BDLR:  OK, so you could hear that there was something going on…

Dee Dee: Yeah.

BDLR:  Like something hitting something?

Dee Dee:  Yeah.

BDLR:  OK.

Dee Dee: You could hear... I could hear the grass thing.

BDLR:  Out of the…

Dee Dee:  Yeah…

BDLR:  …I guess out of the speaker… out of the…

Dee Dee: Yeah.

BDLR:  OK, and then what happened?

Dee Dee:  And then…I was still screaming, I was saying, ‘Trayvon, ‘ ‘Trayvon’…

BDLR:  And there was no response?

Dee Dee: Yeah, and next thing I hear…and next thing, the phone just shut off.

BDLR: The phone shut off?

Dee Dee: It just shut off.

BDLR:  OK, did you hear any kind of screamings like ‘Help me’ or anything like that?

Dee Dee: No.

BDLR:  OK. Did you hear any kind of shot?

Dee Dee: No.

BDLR:  OK. When the phone shut off, did you try calling back?

Dee Dee:  I try calling back like 3 or 2 times.

BDLR:  OK, did you ever get any response?

Dee Dee:  No, and text [unintelligible]…

BDLR:  OK, so the last thing you heard was some kind of noise, like something hitting somebody?

Dee Dee:  Yeah.

BDLR:  OK, and uh…when you heard that noise…something hitting somebody…you didn’t…did you hear the man say anything, or did you hear Trayvon say anything?

Dee Dee:  I can hear a little bit… [inflected to emphasize "a little bit"]

BDLR:  OK, what could you hear?

Dee Dee:  I could just hear like… like, it’s like… the headphone… cause the headphones, he might got off. But I can still hear a little bit…like….

BDLR:  OK, what could you hear?

Dee Dee:  Like a little ‘get off’ some stuff…

BDLR: You heard ‘get off’?

Dee Dee:  Like a little ‘Get off’ [unintelligible—sounds like "now college"]…

BDLR:  Could you tell who was saying that?

Dee Dee:  I coulda’ know Trayvon.

BDLR:  I’m sorry.

Dee Dee:  I coulda' heard Trayvon… Trayvon.

BDLR:  OK, let me make sure I understand…you could hear... it was Trayvon saying that?

Dee Dee:  Yeah. That’s why I was calling his name.

BDLR:  And he was saying what now?

Dee Dee:  Like “get off.”

BDLR:  “Get off?” Is that clear that you were hearing that, or you think you heard that?

Dee Dee:  Yeah, I could hear it a little bit… ”get off… get off,” then the phone just hung up.
[BBM]

In this narrative, W8 says-- twice, yet-- that TM "say he lost the guy" and told her he was going to stop running "cause he say he right by his father house" and that he was going to start walking back.

This context-- which BDLR gets her confirm after he repeats it-- indicates that TM is close to Brandy Green's townhouse and has continued moving towards it when "in a couple minutes… he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him."

W8 then says she unsuccessfully tried to urge TM to run-- with no indication that TM actually changed location during the exchange-- "[a]nd then he told me like the guy was getting close.. like.. and he told me the guy was getting real close to him.  The next I hear, “What are you following me for?”

W8 then describes hearing an "ol’ man… say, ‘Wha’ you doin’ aroun’ here?’ followed by the sounds of someone getting "bumped" and "the grass thing," followed by "a little ‘get off’ some stuff" just before "the phone just hung up."

But what she does NOT say she heard was TM moving to-- or telling her he was moving to-- a location other than "right by his father house" before the confrontation started.

Her actual words above imply that once TM informed her he saw "the man followin’ him again, behin’ him," he stayed in the same spot until George closed the distance and caught up to him.

As implausible as that seems, what she says doesn't indicate otherwise.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on June 24, 2013, 01:55:10 AM
Gosh, you've wasted a lot of work on points that aren't in dispute.

Well, you selectively pulled specific points-- actually, chosen segments of points-- out of my post to respond to.

So when you respond to my saying "W18 has been all over the map with her narrative in her media appearances" by saying "in those I have seen, and in her oral and written statements to investigators, my recollection is that she has been quite consistent" you aren't disputing my assessment of her credibility in her statements after her 911 call?

And when you make a post accusing me of "cherry-picking pieces of evidence and jamming them together as it suits you," I'm "wasting a lot of work" responding to that accusation?

Actually, maybe I am.  ::)
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 24, 2013, 05:51:05 AM
It's what he does.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on June 24, 2013, 10:00:12 AM
Yeah, but he supplies so much GOOD material here that it's doubly irritating when he does it.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 24, 2013, 11:27:29 AM
Yeah, but he supplies so much GOOD material here that it's doubly irritating when he does it.

+1000!

 ;D
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 24, 2013, 01:28:02 PM
So when you respond to my saying "W18 has been all over the map with her narrative in her media appearances" by saying "in those I have seen, and in her oral and written statements to investigators, my recollection is that she has been quite consistent" you aren't disputing my assessment of her credibility in her statements after her 911 call?

In those I have seen, and in her oral and written statements to investigators, my recollection is that she has been quite consistent about hearing two periods of loud, arguing voices, with silence in between.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 02:24:59 AM
This context-- which BDLR gets her confirm after he repeats it-- indicates that TM is close to Brandy Green's townhouse and has continued moving towards it when "in a couple minutes… he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him."

W8 then says she unsuccessfully tried to urge TM to run-- with no indication that TM actually changed location during the exchange

There is also no indication that Martin had stopped walking since the last time she said he was walking.

Quote
Her actual words above imply that once TM informed her he saw "the man followin’ him again, behin’ him," he stayed in the same spot until George closed the distance and caught up to him.

I don't agree that you have quoted a single sentence that implies any such thing.

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you on this. I thought the post would be longer, and it was hard to find the time I thought it would take to compose it. When I got into it, I realized I didn't have as much to say as I thought.
Title: Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 02:38:22 AM

Gosh, you've wasted a lot of work on points that aren't in dispute.

W-8 never said where Martin was at the time the confrontation started.

You are cherry-picking pieces of evidence and jamming them together as it suits you.

Extremely lengthy, but since you're accusing me of "cherry-picking," her statement without edits:

And when you make a post accusing me of "cherry-picking pieces of evidence and jamming them together as it suits you," I'm "wasting a lot of work" responding to that accusation?

You think what I posted at 1:28, was a response to what you posted at 1:30?

My actual response to your post of June 24, 2013, 01:30:02 AM, is above.