TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Daily Trial Proceedings => Topic started by: TalkLeft on June 28, 2013, 06:44:12 PM

Title: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: TalkLeft on June 28, 2013, 06:44:12 PM
This thread is to discuss your thoughts on how Week One of Trial went.
Who helped the defense the most? Did anyone hurt the defense?
Who helped the state?
What do you think of Judge Nelson's rulings and demeanor?
How do you think the lawyers did?
Did either side make any major gaffes?
Were there any areas you expected to be covered during a witness' testimony that weren't?
Did any witnesses contradict other witnesses or their own prior statements?
Was it a mistake to call Rachel Jeantel?
Do you have any questions about this week's proceedings?  Post them here and hopefully another commenter will answer.

(For thoughts on what will be next, see the Trial Expecations thread. If you want to talk about media/talking head coverage, please start a thread under Media)

 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: DebFrmHell on June 28, 2013, 10:58:17 PM
IMO ONLY...The State had to call W8.  Her attitude in the court was amazing and I have no idea why a judge would let her talk like that.  And I never got the feeling she was being entirely honest despite her bravado.

The other closest thing to her testimony was that of W18 and the way she kept repeating "pop, pop, pop" towards the end of her stint, did little to help her credibility since we all know (including the jury) that only one shot was fired.

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



That is just how I read it.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: ding7777 on June 29, 2013, 04:55:16 AM
Rachel Jeantel's manufactured/coerced/tainted testimony is similar to cops "planting evidence". Why didn't Judge Nelson exclude RJ's testimony at at point?

And why didn't Don West find out more about the phone-sharing-friend?

Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 05:04:52 AM
Rachel Jeantel's manufactured/coerced/tainted testimony is similar to cops "planting evidence". Why didn't Judge Nelson exclude RJ's testimony at at point?

And why didn't Don West find out more about the phone-sharing-friend?

Judges do little without being asked.  Nobody sought to exclude Rachael's testimony from the case, and doing so would be "insane" from a legal point of view.  She's held out as a fact witness.  What she has to say about what she heard on 2/26/12 is relevant.  In a jury trial, jury, not the judge, decides issues of credibility.  Even when a witness is an obvious liar (and I'm not saying Rachael was), their testimony is allowed.

We don't yet know what all the defense knows about Rachael.  The defense may call her as a witness - I think to present evidence of Martin's reputation as to fighting, and perhaps as to his state of mind that day seeing as how the two of them were arguing, and Martin may have been angry.

The defense knows who wrote the March 20 statement for Rachael, and has probably asked her questions too.  Those questions might reveal more about Rachael, or might lead the defense in a different direction.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 06:33:40 AM
Rachel was never interviewed by a competent truth seeking investigator.  Once the special prosecutor came into the case, it was guaranteed that the truth would only come out accidentally.  If any witness exhibits how the adversary system: letting lawyers for the defense and prosecution be the main interviewers and preparers of witnesses for trial and questioners at trial, gets in the way of finding the truth, it is her.  Was any effort made to get an interpreter of Creole, Spanish or her English dialect to act as intermediary?  I suppose we will also never find out why the police never called the last number on the phone, which is what Rachel said on the stand she was waiting for.  If you haven't seen them before, here are the questions I put up, while listening to her testimony, a real investigator would have asked and to my frustration weren't.


1.   During Feb. 26 and April 2 of 2012, when did you commit your recollections of Trayvon's last minutes to writing, for example, texts or tweets?  In that time period, whom have you orally discussed your recollections of Feb 26 with?  Have any asked you to say you remember certain things happening?
2.    At the beginning of the final call with Trayvon, he was at his father's house and he kept moving.  Why didn't he go right in?
3.    How do you know George Zimmerman moved towards Trayvon rather than Trayvon going towards George Zimmerman?
4.    How do you know Trayvon, just as Zimmerman caught up to him, turned around to ask Zimmerman why he was following him?
 5.   Since you think the headset with microphone was out of place when you think you heard faintly, "Get off, get off", and you were busy doing your hair, how can you be sure it was TM rather than GZ speaking?  How well do you know Mr. Zimmerman's voice?


Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 08:02:22 AM
Rachel was never interviewed by a competent truth seeking investigator.  Once the special prosecutor came into the case, it was guaranteed that the truth would only come out accidentally.  If any witness exhibits how the adversary system: letting lawyers for the defense and prosecution be the main interviewers and preparers of witnesses for trial and questioners at trial, gets in the way of finding the truth, it is her.  Was any effort made to get an interpreter of Creole, Spanish or her English dialect to act as intermediary?  I suppose we will also never find out why the police never called the last number on the phone, which is what Rachel said on the stand she was waiting for.  If you haven't seen them before, here are the questions I put up, while listening to her testimony, a real investigator would have asked and to my frustration weren't.


1.   During Feb. 26 and April 2 of 2012, when did you commit your recollections of Trayvon's last minutes to writing, for example, texts or tweets?  In that time period, whom have you orally discussed your recollections of Feb 26 with?  Have any asked you to say you remember certain things happening?
2.    At the beginning of the final call with Trayvon, he was at his father's house and he kept moving.  Why didn't he go right in?
3.    How do you know George Zimmerman moved towards Trayvon rather than Trayvon going towards George Zimmerman?
4.    How do you know Trayvon, just as Zimmerman caught up to him, turned around to ask Zimmerman why he was following him?
 5.   Since you think the headset with microphone was out of place when you think you heard faintly, "Get off, get off", and you were busy doing your hair, how can you be sure it was TM rather than GZ speaking?  How well do you know Mr. Zimmerman's voice?


She testified she understood English real well. She did basically all her social media in English.

Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 08:20:14 AM
OK, so maybe only the translator would only need to translate one way.  Whatever, it would have wasted less time than what was done during her testimony.  This could have been intentional; both sides  didn't want the jury to really understand her.  More important was their spin on what she said. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 08:28:28 AM
OK, so maybe only the translator would only need to translate one way.  Whatever, it would have wasted less time than what was done during her testimony.  This could have been intentional; both sides  didn't want the jury to really understand her.  More important was their spin on what she said.

which way? She speaks English. She's been speaking/dealing in English her entire life. She went to school and dealt in English from K on. Her inability to be heard and understood has less to do with any sort of Creole bias and more to do with basic inability to speak basic English because of a reliance on whatever the term for what kids in her neighborhood speak these days.

Plus--IMO only--it appeared she had a speech impediment, her tongue was too large or something similar to that. I don't know if it was because her tongue was pierced, I've met girls that talked kind of that way who had oversized tongue piercings.

Sorry Ricky. I really don't see why you want a Creole translator, I really don't.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 08:42:41 AM
AB, have you listened to McWhorter (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52336026) on the difficulties in understanding Rachel?  When she says she understands English, it doesn't mean the same thing as what we understand as English.  The DEA has been hiring Ebonics to English translators (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/24/dea.ebonics/index.html) so one could have been used for Rachel's testimony.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 08:51:01 AM
I did not listen to McWhorter, at least not yet.

I don't think I knew Ebonics was still something that could be said in polite company. I thought it was one of those mean words everyone gets so worked up about.

But I don't know how much help a translator would've been. Maybe a little, but a large part of the trouble with Rachel seems to be that she told so many different stories and she wasn't particularly smart.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 09:07:51 AM
I don't think it would have been that hard to get the truth out of Rachel.  First you need to find out the best means of communication and use a translator if necessary.  If she is fluent in say Dominican style Spanish, then there is no problem.  Then you let her do as much talking about what happened during and after Feb. 26 as possible.  Just interrupt once in a while to ask for more detail.  Act like you are really interested and appreciate her story.  Even let her go into irrelevancies like what curling iron she uses. I am sure much more than what Crump, BDLR and West got was available from her.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Lousy1 on June 29, 2013, 10:22:33 AM
What makes you think she wants to tell the truth? At this point I would like to see some evidence that she doesn't create her on realities with every retelling. Are there any vignettes about facets of her life beyond this case?

Her lack of concern with self contradiction is telling.

Her ability to ignore her own statements might  be rooted  in a form of  egotism that assigns exclusive credibility to her feelings at the moment.  It is not all that rare.

Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 10:27:42 AM
Nice to see you, Lousy1.

Ricky, she doesn't care about telling the truth. I almost question whether she knows what the truth is. She has different stories for different people at different times. She told several versions just on the stand. Including a couple of times when she did it within a half hour or so.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 10:28:22 AM
I suppose we will also never find out why the police never called the last number on the phone

I think we have a partial answer to that. SPD was still waiting for a court order when they handed the case to Wolfinger. That still leaves the question of why the court took so long, and when the order was first applied for. I've never seen an exact date for the latter event.


Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 11:01:05 AM
They need a court order to do that in a homicide investigation?  ???  That sounds bizarre.  I doubt they do things that way on the TV cop show Rachel mentioned.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 11:15:08 AM
They need a court order to do that in a homicide investigation?  ???  That sounds bizarre.  I doubt they do things that way on the TV cop show Rachel mentioned.

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

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


Quote
The First 48 takes viewers behind the scenes of real-life investigations as it follows homicide detectives in the critical first 48 hours of murder investigations, giving viewers unprecedented access to crime scenes, interrogations and forensic processing.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 11:28:48 AM
Ricky, she doesn't care about telling the truth. I almost question whether she knows what the truth is. She has different stories for different people at different times. She told several versions just on the stand. Including a couple of times when she did it within a half hour or so.
Have you read any of the books by terrorist interrogators like Ali Soufian or Matthew Alexander?  By getting to be pals with their subjects, they made much more intelligent and determined to lie people than Rachel Jeantel crack and spill the beans.  I think such tactics would have worked with Rachel since she didn't have any special rapport with the parents or Crump.  Are you ready to give the investigative work in this case a pass?  Why were there no real SPD or FDLE interviews and investigation of her?  The Florida Legislature should see if travesties like BDLR's interview of this witness can be prevented in the future.  A prosecutor doing what he did would get into really big trouble in Europe and I hope in some places in the US.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 11:32:59 AM
I have no idea how my belief that Rachel isn't very bright and doesn't care about telling the truth--for whatever reason(s) has to do with terrorist interrogation.

I'm not going down the European rabbit hole with you.  :)
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 11:53:11 AM
The show she mentioned is called "The First 48". It's an A&E show, but is now on a bunch of different channels, since I guess most of them are owned by the same people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

She'll be back after Nelson denies the first motion for judgment of acquittal.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 11:59:40 AM
I'm not going down the European rabbit hole with you.  :)

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

It's not hard to dig up dirt on European cases that are cockeyed.  Anyway, for purposes of the Zimmerman case, what I did with RJ is put him on my "ignore" list.  Nothing personal, no hard feelings, he seems a most pleasant person.  But his interests and peeves bore me.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 12:08:52 PM
Sorry cbolt but I don't buy that calling the last number wouldn't have been a valid investigative thing to do on the evening of 2/26/12 or shortly thereafter.  Wasn't there originally some bizarre excuse that they couldn't find an appropriate charger?  ???   Only after a week or so did the consensus in the SPD congeal that Zimmerman's self defense case was good so calling the last number early on might give some insight on whether there was a connection between Martin and Zimmerman or was Martin on the phone shortly before being killed with somebody who had good information.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 12:37:27 PM
They need a court order to do that in a homicide investigation?

They needed a court order to get the code to unlock the phone. Have you not been paying attention? I thought you had participated in discussions of this.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 01:01:12 PM
I probably didn't understand why the phone was "locked".  Certainly Martin didn't lock it.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 01:10:41 PM
I probably didn't understand why the phone was "locked".  Certainly Martin didn't lock it.

When it shut off because of the low battery, it probably automatically went into locked mode.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 01:13:44 PM
I probably didn't understand why the phone was "locked".  Certainly Martin didn't lock it.

Maybe Tracy did, since he didn't bother to help get it unlocked and instead lawyered up instead of giving over the password?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 01:15:10 PM


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



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

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

I wonder if the state may lower their expectations and set their sights on locking in a manslaughter conviction. I can see them backing off slightly from the argument over whether Zimmerman chased TM down and started the physical altercation and instead focusing on the argument that, whatever happened beforehand, GZ's use of deadly force was not proportional or justified compared to the injuries he sustained or that Martin, as an unarmed teenager, was capable of inflicting upon him.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 01:23:13 PM
Maybe Tracy did, since he didn't bother to help get it unlocked and instead lawyered up instead of giving over the password?

I don't think that's too likely, since Tracy didn't have access to the phone.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 01:27:37 PM
The same criticism applies to GZ's flashlights.  The fact that GZ decided to take an extra flashlight could, conceivably, bolster the specific assertion that he intended or hoped to spot TM in the dark instead of just needing an implement to see where he was going. However, the way in which Guy, with little background, simply exclaimed that GZ got out of his car with "not one...but TWO flashlights" (as if having two flashlights was a self-evident indicator of malice) was odd and somewhat desperate-sounding IMO.

He said that!?! Good grief. I wonder what the jury thought when they found out the second flashlight was a mini-flashlight attached to GZ's keyring.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 01:30:28 PM
Sorry cbolt but I don't buy that calling the last number wouldn't have been a valid investigative thing to do on the evening of 2/26/12 or shortly thereafter.  Wasn't there originally some bizarre excuse that they couldn't find an appropriate charger?  ???   Only after a week or so did the consensus in the SPD congeal that Zimmerman's self defense case was good so calling the last number early on might give some insight on whether there was a connection between Martin and Zimmerman or was Martin on the phone shortly before being killed with somebody who had good information.

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

I believe the record shows that the police were curious, and made efforts to obtain the contents of Martin's phone.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 01:31:19 PM
I don't think that's too likely, since Tracy didn't have access to the phone.

I just don't know a phone that locks when the battery runs out. No phone I've ever had has done it, and no phone of anyone I know has done it.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: ding7777 on June 29, 2013, 01:32:52 PM
Would a having the court's mike being bluetooth enabled and having  Jeantel wear a bluetototh
earpiece been of any help in understanding her?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 01:33:12 PM
I probably didn't understand why the phone was "locked".  Certainly Martin didn't lock it.

If the phone was one that was assigned to him, it probably "locked" to a password of his choosing.  My kids have ipods, and thy go to a "locked" condition after elapse of time.  This is set up by the "owner" of the device.  I think your conclusion is in error, and that the locking of the phone was a function established by Martin, so he could maintain access control over his phone ant its contents.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 01:33:26 PM
I just don't know a phone that locks when the battery runs out. No phone I've ever had has done it, and no phone of anyone I know has done it.

That's interesting. I thought they might, as a security feature. I wonder if the phone records the time it was locked.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: ding7777 on June 29, 2013, 01:36:25 PM

 "not one...but TWO flashlights" .

If  GZ had a smart phone with a flashlight app it would be THREE flashights
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 01:37:57 PM
That's interesting. I thought they might, as a security feature. I wonder if the phone records the time it was locked.

And who knows, maybe TM's phone did. To the best of my knowledge I've never even seen a T-Mobile Comet (I think that was the model?).

And as cboldt said, some people set their ipods up to lock I guess. I have two and neither of them does it but I probably could set it up that way.

I wonder if it could be done remotely? Wasn't TM on his father's plan?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 01:39:14 PM
If  GZ had a smart phone with a flashlight app it would be THREE flashights

Good thing he didn't carry one in a belt holster like I do when I'm working at night, eh?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 01:44:25 PM


Her ability to ignore her own statements might  be rooted  in a form of  egotism that assigns exclusive credibility to her feelings at the moment.  It is not all that rare.

I think this is dead on, and I think it explains why she didn't seem to think that there was anything wrong with saying, for example, that she didn't come forward to Sabrina Fulton initially because she knew that she would get 'really emotional'.  I think it has to do with an inability to form an objective opinion or concept of how a reasonable person is expected to interpret or react to a given situation and, consequently, that a reaction that deviates from this requires additional explanation.  In her mind, the fact that she reacted the way she did is proof positive that it was a reasonable reaction because she's a reasonable person and if you felt the way they she did at the time you would have reacted that way too "trust me", no additional reflection required.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 01:45:07 PM
That's interesting. I thought they might, as a security feature. I wonder if the phone records the time it was locked.

Huawei Comet phone (http://m.gsmarena.com/t_mobile_comet-3612.php) runs Android OS, v2.2 (Froyo).

Given that access to the phone provides access to one's e-mail and other potentially "private" information, I would be very surprised to find out that the phone has NO facility to limit access to users who know a user-selected access code.  Not that an access code must be established, just that the phone almost certainly has a function to facilitate security.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 01:47:28 PM
If  GZ had a smart phone with a flashlight app it would be THREE flashights

I think you may have discovered the prosecution's ace in the hole.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 01:49:00 PM
If we don't find out in week 2 or 3 why that last number wasn't called, I will be really p**** d.  Too few mysteries were cleared up in week 1, except perhaps, "Does the prosecution have anything more than we knew about long ago?".  ;D
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 01:51:22 PM
And as cboldt said, some people set their ipods up to lock I guess. I have two and neither of them does it but I probably could set it up that way.

I wonder if it could be done remotely? Wasn't TM on his father's plan?

My kids lock them to make them less attractive targets of theft at school.

It's an android phone, and from I see, it is also WiFi capable.  I would think that access via WiFi might be possible, and looking up the ability "wipe" a phone, I learned that there are apps that can do that with a phone call to the device.

All of that is in the hands of the person who controls the device (picks apps to put on it, provides keyword or other information to the app), who may or may not be the calling plan "bill payer."  The bill payer can cut off access to T-Mobile cell tower usage, without having control of the phone.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 01:55:56 PM
http://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-3729#jive_content_id_Security

You can, apparently. I don't see where it tells you how, but it mentions it being done. I wasn't thinking about it as little web surfing device.

I read the on-line PDF of the manual and didn't see it in there either. There's probably an app for that....

Where's NM? He's probably got the whole thing broken down.

ETA: another T-mobile help area says this:

Quote
Lock / unlock - Screen lock

Screen lock causes the phone to lock when you turn it off. Each time you turn on the phone, the phone is locked and you must draw a pattern or enter a PIN or password. To turn on / off or edit the screen lock, follow these steps:

 

    From the Home screen, tap the Menu  key.
    Tap Settings.
    Tap Location & security.
    Tap Set up screen lock.
    Select one of the following options:

     
        Pattern
        1. Tap Pattern.
        2. Read the instructions for creating a personal screen unlock pattern to secure your phone.
        3. Tap Next.
        4. Review the simulation.
        5. Tap Next.
        6. Touch and slide to draw a pattern, connecting at least four dots.
        7. Tap Continue.
        8. Touch and slide to draw your pattern again.
        9. Tap Confirm.
        PIN
        1. Enter a PIN.
        2. Tap Continue.
        3. Enter your PIN again to confirm.
        4. Tap OK.
        Password
        1. Enter a password.
        2. Tap Continue.
        3. Enter your password again to confirm.
        4. Tap OK.

Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 02:05:24 PM
ETA: another T-mobile help area says this:
Screen lock causes the phone to lock when you turn it off. Each time you turn on the phone, the phone is locked and you must draw a pattern or enter a PIN or password. To turn on / off or edit the screen lock


Good job finding that. It sounds like TM probably had the feature enabled and the phone locked when it shut off due to a low battery. Another minor mystery mostly solved.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: ding7777 on June 29, 2013, 02:08:15 PM
 I can see the defense POV of emphasizing how dark and rainy it was (GZ could not see TM at the T but with GZ's keychain flashlight on TM could see GZ, hence TM confronted GZ) but why is the State doing it?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 02:13:31 PM
I can see the defense POV of emphasizing how dark and rainy it was (GZ could not see TM at the T but with GZ's keychain flashlight on TM could see GZ, hence TM confronted GZ) but why is the State doing it?

Because anyone who goes out at night with TWO flashlights obviously has murder in his heart. I hate to imagine what officer Smith was really up to, with a flashlight on his gun and a separate flashlight.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: jjr495 on June 29, 2013, 02:17:02 PM
Who helped the defense the most?
John Good. Without question. He established that GZ was being severely beaten and was most probably the person screaming for help shortly before the gunshot. I expect that his testimony will seal GZ's acquittal.

Did anyone hurt the defense? Who helped the state?
GZ. His voice on the NEN call establishes that he followed TM with a deadly weapon even after GZ knows that TM ran because he was being watched. Thus GZ created a situation that he should have known might end badly. The jurors are not going to like this, especially with the enormous emotional weight of seeing TM's body and the grieving Martin family.
My opinion, at this point, is that this case should have gone straight to civil litigation.

What do you think of Judge Nelson's rulings and demeanor?
Nelson enforces proper courtroom decorum. I like that. West was properly admonished for his raised voice with RJ. There have only been a few questions by lawyers that they knew were improper, such as at the very end of Friday.
On any close call Nelson almost always sides with the State. I don't like that. I would be floored if she were to order a directed verdict.

How do you think the lawyers did?
Very good. The State is playing their weak hand about as well as they can during trial, but I do think they were unethical pre-trial and ineffective during jury selection. The defense has done very well on cross. The Noffke and Dorival crosses were big bonuses for the defense. Ms. Manalo's cross was handled well, and after Good testified, it seems to me well established that TM was on top throwing the blows when she caught a glimpse of the fighting.

Did either side make any major gaffes?
No, but West's opening joke was close. Guy's statement about the gun being pushed into TM's chest may prove to be a big gaffe. I doubt the jury will like it that a very important fact to have been incorrect or imprecisely stated in the opening.

Were there any areas you expected to be covered during a witness' testimony that weren't?
I was very surprised that we didn't hear more testimony about the 400 minutes of calls and texts between RJ and TM on the day of the homicide. The defense had stated pre-trial that those calls were the possible basis for TM's anger.

Did any witnesses contradict other witnesses or their own prior statements?
Actually the lack of contradiction between eye and ear witnesses is surprising. It is now well established that a verbal conflict erupted near the T, became physical, and then moved south to the final position of TM's body. Multiple people saw flailing or punching arm motions. John Good and the pictures of GZ's injuries cements who was doing the punching.
 
Was it a mistake to call Rachel Jeantel?
What choice did they have after the Frye ruling? "Get off, Get off" is about all they have to hold onto at this point.

Do you have any questions about this week's proceedings?  Post them here and hopefully another commenter will answer.
This is a small matter, but I would find it frustrating to be on the jury and not be allowed to review my notes at the end of each day. Without this kind of review, much of the info will not make it into long term memory. Unless they are very good at taking extensive notes, many of the notes the jurors have taken will not be very helpful. Can the jurors at least write down their thoughts in their hotel room at night? If not, are they not supposed to review the daily proceeding in their minds?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 02:17:58 PM
Because anyone who goes out at night with TWO flashlights obviously has murder in his heart. I hate to imagine what officer Smith was really up to, with a flashlight on his gun and a separate flashlight.

Yeah. Most people don't even have one flashlight with them, or if they have one it's a little keychain one. Obviously having two transforms a mild mannered George Zimmerman into RAMBO!

Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 02:20:08 PM
I can see the defense POV of emphasizing how dark and rainy it was (GZ could not see TM at the T but with GZ's keychain flashlight on TM could see GZ, hence TM confronted GZ) but why is the State doing it?

It seems like a bizarre move on their part.  Maybe they think it helps portray GZ as a wannabe cop who was over-equipped and overeager to engage.  The obvious problem with this trope is that (surprise surprise) one of the flashlights went out, so having an extra one on him was, after all, a very sane and reasonable thing to do.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 02:23:56 PM

What do you think of Judge Nelson's rulings and demeanor?
Nelson enforces proper courtroom decorum. I like that. West was properly admonished for his raised voice with RJ. There have only been a few questions by lawyers that they knew were improper, such as at the very end of Friday.
On any close call Nelson almost always sides with the State. I don't like that. I would be floored if she were to order a directed verdict.


Really?

Because I see Bernie bellowing and dancing and talking over witnesses and never getting spoken to about it. I see the prosecution getting every side bar they want while the defense never gets a side bar.

I don't think Nelson is enforcing anything but the political hackery of charging GZ.

BTW what was improper at the end of the day on Friday?

Quote
GZ. His voice on the NEN call establishes that he followed TM with a deadly weapon even after GZ knows that TM ran because he was being watched. Thus GZ created a situation that he should have known might end badly. The jurors are not going to like this, especially with the enormous emotional weight of seeing TM's body and the grieving Martin family.

So apparently carrying a concealed (or unconcealed) weapon precludes a person from doing a lot of things in your view?

I have friends with the same view, one of them has been through Ayoob's Lethal Force training, he firmly believes GZ is guilty just because he was carrying a gun and didn't just vacate the premises (I know that's not exactly what you said).
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 02:37:57 PM
SPD had no need to review the victim's phone . . .

They tried anyway.

I probably didn't understand why the phone was "locked".

Do you think a fact does not become a fact until you understand it?

16-17/184 (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf)
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 02:38:28 PM
Who helped the defense the most?
John Good. Without question. He established that GZ was being severely beaten and was most probably the person screaming for help shortly before the gunshot. I expect that his testimony will seal GZ's acquittal.

Officer Smith helped a lot too, by quoting GZ's statement that he was screaming for help. He even improved that by commenting on GZ's demeanor, that he seemed confused no one came to his aid.

Quote
Did anyone hurt the defense? Who helped the state?
GZ. His voice on the NEN call establishes that he followed TM with a deadly weapon even after GZ knows that TM ran because he was being watched. Thus GZ created a situation that he should have known might end badly. The jurors are not going to like this, especially with the enormous emotional weight of seeing TM's body and the grieving Martin family.

I think the bolded comment is silly. I see no reason to believe having the gun on him that he normally carried influenced his actions. And I believe he thought TM was heading for the hills, so he had no expectation there'd be a confrontation.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
Who helped the defense the most?


Did anyone hurt the defense? Who helped the state?
GZ. His voice on the NEN call establishes that he followed TM with a deadly weapon even after GZ knows that TM ran because he was being watched. Thus GZ created a situation that he should have known might end badly. The jurors are not going to like this, especially with the enormous emotional weight of seeing TM's body and the grieving Martin family.
My opinion, at this point, is that this case should have gone straight to civil litigation.


These are my thoughts as well.  I think there's a strong argument that GZ's actions were negligent (although probably not criminally negligent) and there probably should have been some sort of settlement off the bat where the Martin family received some compensation and George got to hold onto his reputation and his anonymity. 

In my opinion, overcharging the way the prosecution did in the hope (ostensibly) that GZ would plead out to manslaughter is a tactic  that doesn't translate well in the courtroom.  An overreaching and unconvincing second degree murder argument only bolsters, by contrast, GZ's self-defense argument which acts as a complete defense to all homicide charges.  So the state may have sandbagged their chances of convicting him of anything while at the same time increasing the probability that he'll get immunity from civil litigation.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 02:47:50 PM
I can see the defense POV of emphasizing how dark and rainy it was (GZ could not see TM at the T but with GZ's keychain flashlight on TM could see GZ, hence TM confronted GZ) but why is the State doing it?
In any case he wouldn't be able to identify GZ unless he were really close to him.  There could have been other people out that night in the rain, walking their dog or going home from a neighbor.  I am in the minority of those who think that the meeting of GZ and TM at the T might have been by happenstance.  Trayvon was enjoying gabbing on the phone outside and Rachel is FOS.  Someone in agreement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-h0GmjHSkA&feature=c4-overview&list=UUk3nbk6Mai2k8y87Sl5tPag).  Dave is also live blogging from the courtoom.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cashmere on June 29, 2013, 02:59:53 PM
I am fascinated by this case and really appreciate TL for providing this great forum to follow.  I have seen some of the trial this week, but not even close to all.  This morning I went back to watch the first few witnesses following the opening statements (only got through Chad and the start of the former 7-11 employee).  A few thoughts re: Chad.  I believe I have heard that the state is presenting their case in chronological order, explaining why Chad was called first.  I found Chad to be very "likable" and as a now 15-year-old young man, fairly close in age to Trayvon when he died, highly appealing in terms of garnering sympathy for Trayvon..  to the jury.  I think it was smart for the prosecution to start with Chad as a witness.  Just a thought to throw out re: case strategy.

I have many other thoughts about the trial, and, from what I have seen thus far, I still think the prosecution does not have much of a case.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 03:00:57 PM
  I am in the minority of those who think that the meeting of GZ and TM at the T might have been by happenstance. 

(warning: speculation)
I see this as a viable theory as well.  More precisely, I think it's less likely that TM was lying in wait for GZ and more likely that TM started toward his house and then, sometime around the first time he lost contact with RJ, he decided to pace around the general area and get himself worked up for a confrontation should he and GZ cross paths.  It seems like the idea of TM pumping himself up for a fight fits with GZ's account of TM first barking a challenge at him "why you following me?" and then quickly escalating things when GZ responded to him.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
They tried anyway.

Do you think a fact does not become a fact until you understand it?

16-17/184 (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf)
Apparently from that information, they could download the stuff on the memory chip but not on the SIM card unless they obtained the "swipe code".  But where is the number of the last contact stored?  It will be interesting to find out if Tracey even knew the pin number, to be used too bypass the swipe code, on 3/5/12.  My recollection is that Crump denied Tracy called him about it.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 03:22:42 PM
Was it a mistake to call Rachel Jeantel?
What choice did they have after the Frye ruling? "Get off, Get off" is about all they have to hold onto at this point.
I don't think that is as important a claim as the one that GZ moved towards TM and the latter turned around and asked "Why are you following me for".  She should have been asked exactly what TM said to indicate GZ was moving closer to TM rather than the other way around.  The claim that she knows that TM turned around to say something to GZ is, to me, obviously a lie.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 04:01:13 PM
Did either side make any major gaffes?

Bernie's failed 'gotcha' moment on JL, although it wasn't seen by the jury, was symbolic of the prosecution's general difficulty with witnesses this week.  In my opinion, the prosecution is letting their animosity toward GZ and the defense cloud their judgment.  While some of their attempts at sabotage, like constantly cutting West off to derail his train of thought, were effective, going to such great lengths, including blowing up their own witnesses, just to rob GZ of any boost in favorability seemed to come at the cost of their own opportunity to build a case against him. 

For example, from what I've gleaned so far, their story is that GZ, with a depraved anger and indifference to human life because the 'punks' were always getting away, profiled and pursued TM and that TM's attempts to stop him by fighting back only amplified GZ's murderous impulses.  Why, then, did they latch onto JM's statements in an attempt to depict GZ as being suspiciously calm and casual? A cold-blooded killer may be surprisingly flippant about murdering someone, but even a complete sociopath is very likely to get upset about having his nose smashed in the manner that GZ's was depicted in the exhibits.  The jury was likely pretty incredulous at the idea that GZ was overly calm with blood streaming down both the front and back of his head, regardless of what they thought about his attitude toward the death of TM; the defense also (1) contradicted their earlier depiction of GZ's state of mind when talking to the NEN dispatcher and (2) lost a chance to build on the more believable narrative that the blows to his face didn't cause GZ to fear for his life but instead enraged him further and magnified his bloodlust (for lack of a better word).
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: jjr495 on June 29, 2013, 04:11:29 PM
I see no reason to believe having the gun on him that he normally carried influenced his actions.
That is the problem. I believe walking around with a deadly weapon should require someone to exercise more caution. Many legal actions we take increase our exposure to civil liability. In my opinion, if it has to be legal, carrying a gun should be one of them. Not being a lawyer, I am not familiar enough with torts to say that it is.  I am fairly certain that we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.  "Silly" implies that you think my opinion is irrational. I have made plenty of silly statements on this site, but that wasn't one of them.
Quote
And I believe he thought TM was heading for the hills, so he had no expectation there'd be a confrontation.
No expectation? Someone he thought was "on something" and "up to no good" is supposed to then act rationally? Why then did GZ refuse to give his address?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 04:29:24 PM
Where's NM? He's probably got the whole thing broken down.

I'm actually not very savvy about cell phones. Did you ever determine if the remote lock is possible?

As I mentioned up-thread, the early SPD reports on the phone are on 16-17/184. (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf)

Serino met with Tracy about 9:20 AM on 2/27 (39/184). His report doesn't say how long that meeting lasted, but by the time it was over Tracy knew that Trayvon was dead, his body was at the morgue, and his effects had been taken into evidence by SPD.

Putting those 3 pages together gives us this timeline:

2/26 :: Sgt. Santiago summoned Agent Shor of CCIB (whatever that is) to bring a Cellebrite device (misspelled in the report) to the shooting scene. The device could not be used because the phone had lost power.

2/27, 9:20 AM :: Serino met with Tracy.

2/28 :: SA (State Attorney?) Carter advised Santiago that a warrant wasn't needed. CST Smith took the phone to the Seminole County Sheriff's Office.

3/1 :: Sheriff's Office advised Santiago that without the password they couldn't do anything but download what was on the memory chip.

I'll stop there, since this is what we're interested in. The Sheriff's Office found the phone to be locked, on 2/28 at the earliest, 3/1 at the latest. There was a window, of at least half a day, possibly 3 days, during which Tracy could have locked the phone remotely if that is possible.

But haven't we seen the call records for that time period? I recall a discussion about police calling 911 from the phone, which can be done even if the phone is locked. If a call from Tracy connected during this period, I think we would have known about it.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 04:37:03 PM
That is the problem. I believe walking around with a deadly weapon should require someone to exercise more caution. Many legal actions we take increase our exposure to civil liability. In my opinion, if it has to be legal, carrying a gun should be one of them.

The exposure to liability is only realized if the weapon is drawn, or drawn and fired.  In other words, merely carrying does not increase risk the same way that other common actions, like driving a car, increase risk.  That's because driving a car is an act that involves controlling deadly force that is being deployed.  A weapon in your pocket (even a knife or a pencil) is passive until you choose to use it as a weapon.

Drawing or drawing and firing always creates a risk of civil and criminal liability.  I think it is safe to assume that even a justified draw or draw and fire will result in criminal and civil liability, even if the law says otherwise.  I think an armed person, other than a police officer, who uses force in defense of another, is a fool.  I carry, and the last thing I would do is intervene in any other person's trouble.  I would not assist law enforcement either.  I'm a chicken, will run and hide.  Showing force of arms WILL result in criminal charges.  Unless it is my hide on the line, nobody will know I was armed and could have helped.

People who carry are generally precluded from undertaking the fairly common acts of being verbally obnoxious, or crowding people's personal space without touching them.  Giving up the right to taunt people, call them names, verbally harass them and otherwise be a pest is a form of exercising more caution.

Anyway, you have your wishes.  Carrying arms does increase the risk of liability, all around.  Responsible people who carry arms will tend to tamp down bad scenes, or leave them.  Should I have the misfortune of drawing the attention of an irresponsible armed person, and cannot extract myself, at least I have a fighting chance of living to see another day.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 05:12:02 PM
I'm actually not very savvy about cell phones.
Ditto.  I am still surprised that evenif they could download the memory, they couldn't find out the phone number of the last call. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: jjr495 on June 29, 2013, 05:12:24 PM
Anyway, you have your wishes.  Carrying arms does increase the risk of liability, all around.  Responsible people who carry arms will tend to tamp down bad scenes, or leave them.  Should I have the misfortune of drawing the attention of an irresponsible armed person, and cannot extract myself, at least I have a fighting chance of living to see another day.
Many thanks for that informative reply.
I certainly had no intention to trigger a gun debate so much as to explain why the jurors, even the one that had a concealed weapon permit, may not be too happy with GZ's actions. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 05:33:31 PM
I certainly had no intention to trigger a gun debate so much as to explain why the jurors, even the one that had a concealed weapon permit, may not be too happy with GZ's actions.
I'm not happy with his behavior but I still can't figure out how his self defense claim could be proven unreasonable if one takes into account the screams and Good's testimony.  The jury, though, might disregard how big a burden the prosecution has if they grow to dislike Zimmerman and like Martin's family.  At least one lawyer covering the case, Richard Hornsby, thinks they will give the family a "culpable negligence" booby prize, a misdemeanor which might mean 6 months in jail for Zimmerman.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 05:34:02 PM
Many thanks for that informative reply.
I certainly had no intention to trigger a gun debate so much as to explain why the jurors, even the one that had a concealed weapon permit, may not be too happy with GZ's actions.

I think you're on a false premise.


Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: jjr495 on June 29, 2013, 05:34:42 PM
Because I see Bernie bellowing and dancing and talking over witnesses and never getting spoken to about it.
I have found BDLR to be somewhat agreeable when the jury is in the room and not so much when they are gone. I have seen him smile a few times, and his self-deprecating bald dude joke was funny. I expected him to really be nasty to Good, but he wasn't that bad. In fact, I thought Good appeared to like BDLR more than OMara.
Dorival's cross was very helpful to the defense, because she was about the only witness in the first week to say that GZ was a decent (and meek) person.
The HOA president sure was sour toward the defense. I expected the defense to ask about the HOA's insurance premiums after the settlement.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: jjr495 on June 29, 2013, 05:46:04 PM
I'm not happy with his behavior but I still can't figure out how his self defense claim could be proven unreasonable if one takes into account the screams and Good's testimony.  The jury, though, might disregard how big a burden the prosecution has if they grow to dislike Zimmerman and like Martin's family.  At least one lawyer covering the case, Richard Hornsby, thinks they will give the family a "culpable negligence" booby prize, a misdemeanor which might mean 6 months in jail for Zimmerman.
Interesting. I didn't know that could be a lesser included charge. I had thought some form of manslaughter was the only other option.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 05:46:53 PM
I certainly had no intention to trigger a gun debate so much as to explain why the jurors, even the one that had a concealed weapon permit, may not be too happy with GZ's actions.

It's a fairly common reaction, unhappiness at Zimmerman.  I find it misplaced unhappiness, and lay the blame at Martin's feet.  People do not have the right to strike people, even if the person is staring at your girlfriend or daughter's boobs or butt.  Martin had no right to punch Zimmerman in the nose.  I do not believe, not one little bit, that Martin was afraid.  I do not fault Zimmerman for trying to be a good neighbor.

I do agree, however, that this legal outcome, Zimmerman being on trial and being criticized for getting out of his truck, cuts against people who carry guns.  And I'm not saying that Zimmerman was irresponsible, just admitting that the social result partially cuts against the right to be armed for self defense.  Judging from the results of Florida's introspection on SYG law, I think those who think the law creates some incentive to use deadly force are a small minority.

I don't think the jury is going to convict Zimmerman.  It doesn't matter if they find he did nothing wrong (which is how I see it), or if they find getting out of the truck was wrong.  What is going to be inescapable (I think the deed is already done) is that credible evidence creates a possibility that Martin committed a bigger wrong, and that the state did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not in fear of serious injury or worse.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 05:49:27 PM
How could it be happenstance?  When TM ran to an area where he couldn't be followed by car, who got out of the car and ran behind him?  That was a deliberate action, not something accidental.

What evidence do you have that GZ ran behind Martin? If GZ had run up to the "T" he would have been out of breath. Do you really believe GZ intended to catch up to Martin? If so, what's your evidence for that implausible belief. If it wasn't happenstance (and I doubt it was), they met because Martin wanted them to meet.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 05:56:29 PM
I'm not happy with his behavior but I still can't figure out how his self defense claim could be proven unreasonable if one takes into account the screams and Good's testimony.  The jury, though, might disregard how big a burden the prosecution has if they grow to dislike Zimmerman and like Martin's family.  At least one lawyer covering the case, Richard Hornsby, thinks they will give the family a "culpable negligence" booby prize, a misdemeanor which might mean 6 months in jail for Zimmerman.

I think this is the difficult part at this point, as the jury's gotten some insight into the dubious circumstances surrounding RJ's initial statements to crump, heard about Tracy Martin's less-than-favorable utterances in the court bathroom and trying to play up TM or his relationship with his family favorably has the potential to open some evidentiary doors that they really don't want to open.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 05:58:44 PM
Tracy Martin's less-than-favorable utterances in the court bathroom

That was discussed outside the presence of the jury.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 06:00:26 PM
That was discussed outside the presence of the jury.

My bad, strike that.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 06:01:00 PM
At least one lawyer covering the case, Richard Hornsby, thinks they will give the family a "culpable negligence" booby prize, a misdemeanor which might mean 6 months in jail for Zimmerman.

His explanation is, well, actually, he has not explained it, nor has he described the legal framework that (supposedly) admits it.

First, the jury would have to reject that the use of deadly force was justified.  Edit to add, this means that the jury will have to conclude that the state has disproved Zimmerman's contention his use of force was justified, and the disproof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, the judge would have to find both that the charging document, the information, recites the elements that comprise culpable negligence; and that the case includes some evidence for each element.  Culpable negligence is a permissive lesser included offense, which causes those two legal hurdles to exist under Florida law.  Hornsby needs to walk through the elements of culpable negligence, and show how the charging document and evidence stack up against that criminal offense.

To further show that he hasn't done his homework, there are various levels of culpable negligence.  Culpable negligence that actually causes injury carries a sentence of one year.  Hornsby has been asserting that if he gets convicted of culpable negligence, Zimmerman will get 60 days.

The fact pattern in the Gibbs case has Gibbs (a nasty lady, by my reckoning) knocking an old lady on her butt, after an exchange of words started by Gibbs.  The old, fat lady had some medical problems, and had a heart attack half an hour later.  I can understand the jury having a hard time concluding that death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of shoving somebody; and other than the heart attack, the dead lady didn't have any injuries.  So, they convicted Gibbs of a negligent act that exposed the victim to injury - that is the crime with a 60 day sentence.  Edit to add, the jury rejected Gibbs self defense claim - the only person who said she didn't start it was her friend.  Other witnesses said Gibbs was the first to use force.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 06:04:54 PM
How could it be happenstance?  When TM ran to an area where he couldn't be followed by car, who got out of the car and ran behind him?  That was a deliberate action, not something accidental.
Is this an argument about semantics?  I think two guys wandering around a very dark area, not being able to see each other, bumping into each other after 4 minutes can be regarded as a happenstance.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 06:09:23 PM
Is this an argument about semantics?  I think two guys wandering around a very dark area, not being able to see each other, bumping into each other after 4 minutes can be regarded as a happenstance.

So Martin can't see Zimmerman's little flashlight, right?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 06:10:15 PM
Is this an argument about semantics?  I think two guys wandering around a very dark area, not being able to see each other, bumping into each other after 4 minutes can be regarded as a happenstance.

Except GZ had a flashlight. TM would've been able--was able--to at least see where he was, if not actually see him.

ETA: LOL. cboldt beat me to it.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Jujube on June 29, 2013, 06:23:48 PM
What evidence do you have that GZ ran behind Martin? If GZ had run up to the "T" he would have been out of breath. Do you really believe GZ intended to catch up to Martin? If so, what's your evidence for that implausible belief. If it wasn't happenstance (and I doubt it was), they met because Martin wanted them to meet.

Even if he walked behind TM, he was still behind TM.  Do you think TM had a big "FOLLOW ME" sign that he waved in front of GZ?  You think he taunted him with the Arizona can and the Skittles?

 
Except GZ had a flashlight. TM would've been able--was able--to at least see where he was, if not actually see him.


And, of course, GZ wouldn't be able to see him....  ::)
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 06:23:59 PM
So Martin can't see Zimmerman's little flashlight, right?
He might see the tiny flashlight faintly but he certainly couldn't tell it was Zimmerman unless he was within maybe 10-15 feet of him.  Good with his porch light on could barely make out figures 20 feet away.  Of course I'm roughly guessing but considering the length of the entire dogwalk, being that close to the T at the same time Zimmerman crossed the top of it could be an unlucky accident.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Jujube on June 29, 2013, 06:26:44 PM
Since everyone is talking about gun use and concealed carry, I actually lived and worked in the area around Sanford for 10 years and I'm the approximate age of the jurors (plus I'm a white woman). 

While gun use was common in the area, I don't know anyone who was okay with "careless" gun use.  If those women feel like GZ was careless, he's not going to get a pass just because he has a permit. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 06:29:01 PM
Even if he walked behind TM, he was still behind TM.  Do you think TM had a big "FOLLOW ME" sign that he waved in front of GZ?  You think he taunted him with the Arizona can and the Skittles?

 
And, of course, GZ wouldn't be able to see him....  ::)

Have you ever tried to see 50 feet in the dark with one of those tiny keychain flashlights?
 ::) yourself.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 06:29:38 PM
Even if he walked behind TM, he was still behind TM.  Do you think TM had a big "FOLLOW ME" sign that he waved in front of GZ?  You think he taunted him with the Arizona can and the Skittles?

But even if GZ ran, it's high unlikely he was intending to meet TM. If he walked, it's virtually impossible. So if they met, it wasn't because Zimmerman intended they meet. Either they met by happenstance or they met because Martin wanted them to meet.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Jujube on June 29, 2013, 06:33:59 PM
But even if GZ ran, it's high unlikely he was intending to meet TM. If we walked, it's virtually impossible. So if they met, it wasn't because Zimmerman intended they meet. Either they met by happenstance or they met because Martin wanted them to meet.

I don't think Martin wanted to meet him.  That's why Martin ran away from him. 

You know, all of this is going to come down to the jury  I think he would have had an easier time if there was at least one male on the jury. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: cboldt on June 29, 2013, 06:41:35 PM
I don't think Martin wanted to meet him.  That's why Martin ran away from him. 

You know, all of this is going to come down to the jury  I think he would have had an easier time if there was at least one male on the jury.

If Martin ran away, how did Zimmerman catch Martin?  That seems to me to be a fundamental logic fail, given the evidence.  Do you think it is necessary to have a man on the jury to prevent fundamental logic fail?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 06:43:34 PM
I don't think Martin wanted to meet him.  That's why Martin ran away from him. 

You know, all of this is going to come down to the jury  I think he would have had an easier time if there was at least one male on the jury.

You seem to be forgetting that Rachel said over and over "he right by his father house".

They met because TM wanted to meet. Trayvon certainly had every opportunity to go in the damn house.

Or even just keep his head down and wait for GZ to go back to his truck to meet the cops.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 06:49:25 PM
 
Even if he walked behind TM, he was still behind TM.  Do you think TM had a big "FOLLOW ME" sign that he waved in front of GZ?  You think he taunted him with the Arizona can and the Skittles?


If you accept that TM was allowed to remain outside near the T and didn't have any legal obligation to go home as fast as possible when he saw GZ, then you also have to accept that GZ was similarly innocent of any legal transgression for his decision to move into the same area that Martin decided to remain in, even if he had previously jogged in the same direction as Martin for ten or fifteen seconds.  Considering the fact that once GZ got out of his car, TM was only in his line of sight for a very brief period of time, I don't think that characterizing one of them as being in front or behind the other is really as significant  as many people make it out to be.

I don't think Martin wanted to meet him.  That's why Martin ran away from him. 


My theory is that although neither GZ or TM were, at least initially, extremely gung-ho about having a fight, Martin seemed to be the more aggressive of the two from the onset.   Compare how TM walked right up to GZ's vehicle and circled around it to how GZ waited until TM was definitely moving away from him before he decided to get out of his car.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 06:55:14 PM
If Martin ran away, how did Zimmerman catch Martin?  That seems to me to be a fundamental logic fail, given the evidence.  Do you think it is necessary to have a man on the jury to prevent fundamental logic fail?

I think she's saying that women won't fall for logic fail--but if there was a man he'd be easier to snow.

Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 06:55:31 PM
No thread for Diana Smith, the evidence collector?  Well I'll say it here.  Watermelon juice can in hoodie pocket and 711 bag found on ground between the Good and Lauer/Weinberg houses seems to be good for the defense.  Most probable explanation is Martin hurriedly put the can in his pocket, carelessly dropping the bag, because he needed to have both hands free for some reason.  Sounds good for closing defense argument.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 09:25:33 PM
Three reasons I prefer the happenstance theory of the Martin-Zimmerman meeting at the T over the lie in wait theory are:

1. The can in pocket with bag on ground indicates a sudden decision to stash the drink away when Zimmerman appeared a few feet in front of him.
2. Rachel's telling West that if Trayvon decided to do the confronting he would have told her he would call her back seemed to be a spontaneous statement from her and probably based on prior experience.  (West should have explored it though, instead of getting indignant and accusatory with her.)  So I think Martin just didn't have the time to hang up when Zimmerman suddenly appeared walking back to TTL.
3. If he was close enough to recognize Zimmerman going towards RVC, why didn't he confront him then?  Why would he lie in wait and hope Zimmerman might come back?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 09:57:20 PM
Most probable explanation is Martin hurriedly put the can in his pocket, carelessly dropping the bag

If he was in a hurry, why did he take the can out of the bag?

Neither side has mentioned the can being out the bag. I suspect that's because neither side has come up with a plausible way to argue that it supports their case.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 10:17:00 PM
Have you ever tried to see 50 feet in the dark with one of those tiny keychain flashlights?
 ::) yourself.

Surdyka saw two people on the ground at a distance of 80 feet or more, with no flashlight.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 10:24:25 PM
No thread for Diana Smith, the evidence collector? 

No one started a thread for her when she testified. Cylinder and I posted a few comments about her on the thread for  Day 2 Trial Witnesses. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2510.msg113035.html#msg113035)

If anyone has something to say about her, I suggest starting a thread.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 10:38:28 PM
No one started a thread for her when she testified. Cylinder and I posted a few comments about her on the thread for  Day 2 Trial Witnesses. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2510.msg113035.html#msg113035)

If anyone has something to say about her, I suggest starting a thread.

I just added a thread for her.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 11:07:57 PM
Stacey Livingston, who took the can out of the pocket, reportedly told FDLE that she didn't recall the bag (82/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)). I don't trust those interview summaries and their paraphrases. Does she not recall if there was a bag, or is that just their way of saying that she said there was no bag?

I don't know if Livingston was asked about that in her trial testimony. It's not in her thread. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2527.msg113976.html#msg113976)

If the can was in the bag when Livingston took it from Martin's pocket, she might have taken the can out or someone else might have. I doubt we will ever know who took the can out of the bag, let alone why it was done.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Cylinder on June 29, 2013, 11:25:37 PM
She felt the crinkle of a bag while lifting Martin's shirt and after having removed the can from the center pocket. She did not remove the bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt3sWKws-UY&feature=player_embedded

05:10
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: DebFrmHell on June 29, 2013, 11:29:10 PM
She felt the crinkle of a bag while lifting Martin's shirt and after having removed the can from the center pocket. She did not remove the bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt3sWKws-UY&feature=player_embedded

05:10

I thought she was referring to the bag of Skittles during that point.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Cylinder on June 29, 2013, 11:35:04 PM
I thought she was referring to the bag of Skittles during that point.

Great point.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: unitron on June 30, 2013, 03:06:23 AM
Would a having the court's mike being bluetooth enabled and having  Jeantel wear a bluetototh
earpiece been of any help in understanding her?

You have just won the internets.

 ;D
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: unitron on June 30, 2013, 03:08:07 AM
Good thing he didn't carry one in a belt holster like I do when I'm working at night, eh?

Do you stand in front of the mirror and practice your quick draw?

Are you a card-carrying member of the National Reflector-Lamp Association?

How do we know that you're not a depraved non-emergency number caller?

 ;D
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: unitron on June 30, 2013, 03:33:19 AM
Surdyka saw two people on the ground at a distance of 80 feet or more, with no flashlight.

Wasn't that right about the time she was hearing all 3 gunshots?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: unitron on June 30, 2013, 03:36:24 AM
No thread for Diana Smith, the evidence collector?  Well I'll say it here.  Watermelon juice can in hoodie pocket and 711 bag found on ground between the Good and Lauer/Weinberg houses seems to be good for the defense.  Most probable explanation is Martin hurriedly put the can in his pocket, carelessly dropping the bag, because he needed to have both hands free for some reason.  Sounds good for closing defense argument.

He hurriedly took the can out of the bag and put it (the can) in his pocket instead of just cramming it all in there?

I guess some hurries are less hurried than others.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: TalkLeft on June 30, 2013, 03:48:05 AM
The DEA has been hiring Ebonics to English translators (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/24/dea.ebonics/index.html) so one could have been used for Rachel's testimony.

That article was in 2010 and I can say I haven't seen one in any of my cases. I discuss the case law on this and some examples here (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/8/23/23731/0452/crimepolicy/DEA-Seeks-to-Hire-Ebonics-Linguists).
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 30, 2013, 06:00:29 AM
She felt the crinkle of a bag while lifting Martin's shirt and after having removed the can from the center pocket. She did not remove the bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt3sWKws-UY&feature=player_embedded

05:10
The crinkle part happened about 5:50.  Were the skittles in a different pocket than the can, or has there been no testimony on where the skittles were found?  If there was an attempt to put them in two different pockets, that might explain why the bag was dropped.  The location of the bag indicates to me that the transference of the can and skittles and the dropping of the bag happened around the time of the beginning of the confrontation at the T.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 06:14:28 AM
Three reasons I prefer the happenstance theory of the Martin-Zimmerman meeting at the T over the lie in wait theory are:

1. The can in pocket with bag on ground indicates a sudden decision to stash the drink away when Zimmerman appeared a few feet in front of him.
2. Rachel's telling West that if Trayvon decided to do the confronting he would have told her he would call her back seemed to be a spontaneous statement from her and probably based on prior experience.  (West should have explored it though, instead of getting indignant and accusatory with her.)  So I think Martin just didn't have the time to hang up when Zimmerman suddenly appeared walking back to TTL.
3. If he was close enough to recognize Zimmerman going towards RVC, why didn't he confront him then?  Why would he lie in wait and hope Zimmerman might come back?

I thought he did ask her and it was objected to and sustained?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 06:16:47 AM
Do you stand in front of the mirror and practice your quick draw?

Are you a card-carrying member of the National Reflector-Lamp Association?

How do we know that you're not a depraved non-emergency number caller?

 ;D

1.no
2.didn't know there was one, will request membership info post haste
3. you don't; i could be. does it change things between us?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 30, 2013, 07:54:39 AM
Surdyka saw two people on the ground at a distance of 80 feet or more, with no flashlight.
The small amount of light illuminating the lawn, coming from Good's porch light, might have made her observation possible.  I think she could just barely see them. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 07:59:27 AM
Surdyka saw two people on the ground at a distance of 80 feet or more, with no flashlight.

Wasn't Good much closer, and didn't he testify that even with his own porch light he could barely see, or something along those lines?

TM was wearing dark clothing--and dark grey or wet grey is really hard to see at night. Harder than most blacks actually.

Plus which I think Surdyka has been pretty well discredited hasn't she? Pop pop pop, boy's cry for help, not to mention her claims of Olympic qualification (top three in the world!).
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 08:42:10 AM
Wasn't that right about the time she was hearing all 3 gunshots?

Surdyka reported seeing two men wrestling on her 911 call, at a time when she had no other way of knowing they were there. Are you suggesting she couldn't really see them, and coincidentally hallucinated people who were actually there?

Surdyka reported one 'pop noise' on her 911 call. Everything on her 911 call is consistent with the other evidence.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 09:02:36 AM
has there been no testimony on where the skittles were found?

According to her SAO interview summary (35/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)), ME Investigator Tara Malphurs 'began removing items from the Victim. The Skittles was [sic] in the top front pocket of the Victim's hoodie.'

As for trial testimony, I expect we will hear from Malphurs before the ME.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: RickyJim on June 30, 2013, 09:38:10 AM
Here is an hour long session (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2013/06/29/george-zimmerman-trial-daily-update) on the first week with Richard Hornsby.  He still thinks there will be a compromise verdict because, "the minority juror keeps looking over at Sybrina Fulton".
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 09:40:09 AM
Surdyka reported seeing two men wrestling on her 911 call, at a time when she had no other way of knowing they were there. Are you suggesting she couldn't really see them, and coincidentally hallucinated people who were actually there?

Surdyka reported one 'pop noise' on her 911 call. Everything on her 911 call is consistent with the other evidence.

From Andrew Branca, blogging testimony at Legal Insurrection (a practicing lawyer in his third decade):
Quote
More objectively, however, were observation testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case. On at least three separate occasions Sudyka referred to the “three shots” fired by Zimmerman–”pop, pop, pop”. No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.

She testified that it was while she as on the 911 call with police that the shot was fired, sticking to that assertion vigorously. In fact, the 911 recording was played in court–yes, every single 16 minutes of it–and no shot was audible.

She also described the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin at the moment the shot was fired as being such that the bullet could only have struck Martin in the back (that is, she describes him as laying face down on the ground at that moment, with Zimmerman above him). We know, of course, that Martin was shot in the center chest area, right over the heart, and the bullet did not over-penetrate.

Interestingly, Sudyka also stated several times that the rainfall at the time was quite heavy–’buckets of rain” was the phrase she used, so intense that she needed to close a window to prevent rain from entering her home. This observation favors the defense, which has suggested that the rain may have washed away the traces of blood that several witnesses have said was not evident at the scene. Indeed, so damaging were these statements to the State that Mr. de la Rionda rose on re-direct for the sole purpose of inducing Sudyka to make corrective statements downplaying the intensity of the rainfall.

Sudyka also was insistent that she had heard two voices, one a loud, aggressive, confrontational, dominating voice and the other a softer, meeker voice. She attributed the confrontational voice to Zimmerman and the meeker voice to the “boy,” Martin. It emerged on cross, however, that she had never previously heard either Zimmerman or Martin’s voice, and was making her assignment based on assumptions of how they might sound, not on personal knowledge.

So her 911 call was totally different from her in court testimony, which was totally different from the testimony of other witnesses.

And she lied about the Olympics it seems. So she's not credible at all, even if, like a broken clock, she veered into being right a couple of times.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 10:18:41 AM
From Andrew Branca, blogging testimony at Legal Insurrection
Quote
No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.

Wrong. Jonathan Manalo (W-13) told Serino (http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/zimmermanevidence/audio/W13_SPD02262012.wav) on 2/26/12, that he and his wife heard 'a loud pop, or two pops' and 'a couple of pops'.

Quote
like a broken clock, she veered into being right a couple of times.

Are you seriously suggesting that the statements on Surdyka's 911 call, most of which (a lot more than two) are corroborated by other testimony, none of which are contradicted, are all just lucky guesses, at a time when she had no information but her own observations on which to base such guesses?

If her accurate statements are all lucky guesses, wouldn't you expect them to be random across time, instead of concentrated in her 911 call?

I think it is much more sensible to conclude that Surdyka observed and reported accurately during and immediately after the events, and afterwards her recollections drifted.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 11:01:45 AM


Wrong. Jonathan Manalo (W-13) told Serino (http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/zimmermanevidence/audio/W13_SPD02262012.wav) on 2/26/12, that he and his wife heard 'a loud pop, or two pops' and 'a couple of pops'.

Are you seriously suggesting that the statements on Surdyka's 911 call, most of which (a lot more than two) are corroborated by other testimony, none of which are contradicted, are all just lucky guesses, at a time when she had no information but her own observations on which to base such guesses?

If her accurate statements are all lucky guesses, wouldn't you expect them to be random across time, instead of concentrated in her 911 call?

I think it is much more sensible to conclude that Surdyka observed and reported accurately during and immediately after the events, and afterwards her recollections drifted.

I think we're commenting past each other again.

Part of what I'm saying is that her 911 call was played in court, it's been entered into evidence, right? And she testified in person, right?

Her in person testimony differed from the 911 call.

With those events, and other things, it seems fair to suggest she's unreliable overall, not just here.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 11:06:35 AM
BTW, NM, I believe Andrew Branca was talking about "court" because he wrote "testimony".

I didnt' watch Manolo's testimony, but I haven't seen a transcript yet where he testifies that he heard multiple gun shots. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that I haven't seen/found it.

Surdyka's testimony is at odds with her 911 call, and with the recollections of everyone else--from the amount of rain to the number of shots to the child begging for help.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 11:10:14 AM
BTW, NM, I believe Andrew Branca was talking about "court" because he wrote "testimony".

That wasn't in what you quoted. What you quoted said 'ever'.

Quote
No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Jujube on June 30, 2013, 11:42:48 AM

1. The can in pocket with bag on ground indicates a sudden decision to stash the drink away when Zimmerman appeared a few feet in front of him.

I just gave this some thought and I thought of a few things that don't fit this scenario.  When George was on the NEN call, he did not say the guy was carrying a bag.  He did say that the guy had something in his waistband.  That implies that the can was already in the pocket. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Jujube on June 30, 2013, 11:49:10 AM
Surdyka reported seeing two men wrestling on her 911 call, at a time when she had no other way of knowing they were there. Are you suggesting she couldn't really see them, and coincidentally hallucinated people who were actually there?

Surdyka reported one 'pop noise' on her 911 call. Everything on her 911 call is consistent with the other evidence.

Surdyka was the only one to report a Hispanic man was coming towards her after the event was over.  That matches up with other testimony and she was the only one who correctly labeled him Hispanic. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 30, 2013, 11:57:23 AM
I just gave this some thought and I thought of a few things that don't fit this scenario.  When George was on the NEN call, he did not say the guy was carrying a bag.  He did say that the guy had something in his waistband.  That implies that the can was already in the pocket.

1:03:11: He's got his hand in his waistband.

1:15:52: He's got something in his hand.

Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: Jujube on June 30, 2013, 12:01:39 PM
1:15:52: He's got something in his hand.

His phone? 
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: MJW on June 30, 2013, 12:14:45 PM
His phone?

The point wasn't about what he had in his hand, it was to correct your misstatements.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 12:20:48 PM
I think we're commenting past each other again.

Zimmerman shot Martin about 7:16:56.

Surdyka connected with 911 about 10 seconds later, about 7:17:06.

About half a minute later, after giving her address, talking about screaming, and a single loud noise, which she called 'like a bang' and 'like a pop noise', she said 'And they're both still out there right now.'

Then she reported two people walking, apparently Manalo and Zimmerman, talking about them in a way that suggested that she understood that one of them had been involved in the incident, and the other had just come from a house and was approaching the location of the incident.

About 7:18:33, about a minute and a half after the gunshot, Surdyka told the dispatcher that she saw someone on the ground.

After another half minute, about 7:19:08, Surdyka reported that Manalo had reached Zimmerman, referring to Zimmerman as 'a man who had been wrestling'.

About 20 seconds later, 7:19:27, she told the dispatcher that the person she said was on the ground was lying 'in the grass'.

For this whole time, starting 10 seconds after the gunshot, Surdyka was on the phone with 911. She did not get another call that she put on 3-way, to give her information about what was happening outside. I know of no evidence that she had any source of information about these events except her own observations. All of her observations during this time, are corroborated by statements from Good, Manalo, Zimmerman, or some combination thereof.

I conclude that Surdyka was able to see the body of Trayvon Martin, horizontal on the ground, at a distance of some 80 feet or more. This is what I am talking about. Are you disputing this, or not?
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 01:03:39 PM
That wasn't in what you quoted. What you quoted said 'ever'.

Quote
More objectively, however, were observation testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case. On at least three separate occasions Sudyka referred to the “three shots” fired by Zimmerman–”pop, pop, pop”. No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.

I guess that's where we're going to hang up.
 :)
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 01:05:49 PM

I conclude that Surdyka was able to see the body of Trayvon Martin, horizontal on the ground, at a distance of some 80 feet or more. This is what I am talking about. Are you disputing this, or not?

Nah.

Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 01:41:36 PM
Quote
More objectively, however, were observation testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case.

OK. Honestly, it never crossed my mind that this is what you meant. It's 'testimony by Sudyka', not testimony unqualified, testimony in general, which I might have taken to indicate that comments about statements by persons other than Sudyka were implicitly restricted to trial testimony.

Anyway, why did Branca say 'suggested', if what he really meant was 'testified'? Easy enough to use the verb that says what he wants to say.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 01:56:51 PM


OK. Honestly, it never crossed my mind that this is what you meant. It's 'testimony by Sudyka', not testimony unqualified, testimony in general, which I might have taken to indicate that comments about statements by persons other than Sudyka were implicitly restricted to trial testimony.

Anyway, why did Branca say 'suggested', if what he really meant was 'testified'? Easy enough to use the verb that says what he wants to say.

That's why I say we comment past each other a bunch.

As to why Branca wrote suggested when he meant testified, I really don't know.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 02:01:36 PM
As to why Branca wrote suggested when he meant testified, I really don't know.

Maybe he meant what he said. Has he said elsewhere that he meant something else? I thought that was your speculation.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 30, 2013, 03:08:54 PM
Maybe he meant what he said. Has he said elsewhere that he meant something else? I thought that was your speculation.

You must be a joy to live with.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 03:25:34 PM
The small amount of light illuminating the lawn, coming from Good's porch light, might have made her observation possible.

Check out State's Exhibit 77 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/9139141975/) (Warning: somewhat graphic photo of Martin's body).

The video you are so fond of shows the same thing. The porch light has a reflective housing that directs its beam to illuminate the patio, forming a sharp rectangle of light. Good mentioned that in one of his statements.

Assuming it was to any degree easier to see someone who was opposite an active porch light, how do you know Martin or Zimmerman wasn't?

Speaking of David Knechel, I learned something interesting about him. He blogged about the Casey Anthony case, and was involved in the judge recusing himself. He was gung ho for conviction, and he ratted out the judge for seeing him privately and praising the fairness of his coverage.

Quote
I think she could just barely see them.

She could see them well enough to know they were there.

I don't buy the theory that either Zimmerman or Martin would have been discouraged by the difficulty of identifying the other at a distance among the huge crowd of other people out there. I have yet to see any evidence for such people.
Title: Re: Thoughts on Week One of Trial
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 04:36:57 PM
What I think about this week, is that the defense has essentially won. The only remaining issue, is if a stealth or quirky juror has slipped through to hang the jury.