17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #29

[cityslick]

But yesterday was a bond hearing. What they are saying doesn't make sense. What is said in a hearing is not the same as what is said in trial. You can't cross examine someone for what they said in a hearing. Yesterday wasn't a deposition of the investigator, just some questions asked at a bond hearing. Hearings are separate from trials. What is said in hearing, I believe, can't be used against the same person who testifies at a trial. Hearings may affect what happens in a courtroom, but what is said in a hearing, as far as I know, can't be used to contradict someone at trial. These talking heads do not know what they are talking about.

Now, O'Mara could do a deposition of this investigator, and if he gives the same answers in that deposition, that could then be questioned at trial. Hearings are separate from the actual trial. The Casey Anthony juries had no clue about what kind and how many hearings there were before trial. The jurors in this trial aren't going have any clue either. What matters is what is said in depositions and in the trial itself.

Considering the fact that most of them are either lawyers or are in law, I think I'm going to think they know a little about he subject.

RH could probably answer it as well.

 

[SuziQ]

His site now has another awful quote. "A thousand words will not leave so deep an impression as one deed" - Henrik, Ibsen

IMO, GZ views himself as a martyr.

 

[CHICANA]

BBM

Why do you say ground?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Gilbreath, I didn't know we were going to be trying the case, I'm going to add up -- I apologize. I want to add some questions to -- you had reviewed or other members of the team had reviewed his interviews, is that not true.

GILBREATH: That is --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not.

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the defendant -- did he not state or claim that the victim in this case, Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so that he couldn't breathe?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that's when he was able to get free and grab the gun. Or I'm sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun, did he not claim that too at some point. climb that?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- and I'm going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn't you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself?

GILBREATH: Yes.

Ground, concrete ? IMO, it doesn't matter. I said if because I don't know what really happened until all the evidence comes out.
IMO, there's evidence that GZ's account is possible and LE testified that it was possible, right ?

There's a witness that contradicts GZ's statement and one that backs it up, correct ? I'm waiting to see who turns out to be more credible.
I believe you've been following this case more closely than I have, so my questions are sincere.

 

[Adrienne37]

When the SA's investigator says they have no evidence of this or that while on the stand for a Bail Hearing, are they really locked into that when the trial comes in? If this is true, it sounds like it could be over.

There was only one investigator at the bond hearing yesterday and the other investigator will certainly be given the chance to testify at the trial.


~jmo~

 

[CathyinTexas]

Lord, my mother is watching Fox News and I happened to hear some of it. They totally believe the bloody GZ head picture and also believe that GZ is innocent. It makes me sick. I almost laughed when they said we don't know all the facts of that night, and I wanted to shout, YOU'RE RIGHT! So why is it that they just assume, without all of the facts, that GZ had a right to do what he did? They act like no one can talk nice about Trayvon because not all the facts are known. Well what about GZ? Why is he automatically an angel when we don't know all the facts about what happened either? This is so biased it's not even funny. And don't get me started on how much they just LOVE GZ's apology. UGH!

About GZ's record. The judge minimized what GZ did, which leads me to believe he won't allow the jury to hear it.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Did they swab GZ's wounds and find traces of concrete?

Better yet, what blood did they find on Trayvon's hands? Zimmerman said he had a split lip so his blood better be on Trayvon's palm since he said Trayvon put his hand over his mouth.

 

[Adrienne37]

Who else thinks the SA handling this case is nothing more than a sham?

Why is it nothing more than a sham? It was a bond hearing for Jiminy Cricket's sake. The prosecution already stated they would not oppose bond as long as he was fitted with a GPS device/ankle bracelet prior to being let out. I can't figure out how it must be a sham.


~jmo~

 

[Phoenixfla]

I don't think anyone could have stopped him from apologizing since he's wanted to do this for a while.

I should add that my experience with police is why I've remained so objective in regards to this case. I don't trust many of them and that investigator on the stand reconfirmed my opinion.

I feel that there is a lot of collusion going on with the police after the fact.

Of course, this is my opinion and my opinion is based solely on my past experience with law enforcement.

While I was listening to the investigator yesterday I sensed there was a lot of pressure put on him to make a case. Just the phrasing he used in the affidavit as MOM pointed out was very telling.

Shouldn't an investigator be objective like maybe looking at GZs medical records? I just cant understand why they did not ask GZ for those.

 

[Adrienne37]

About GZ's record. The judge minimized what GZ did, which leads me to believe he won't allow the jury to hear it.

Which doesn't hurt their case in my opinion. Additionally, if the judge won't allow the jury to hear about Zimmerman's past offenses then he certainly will not allow Trayvon's suspension to be brought in as well.


~jmo~

 

[cityslick]

IMO, I just thought this exchange didn't help the state:

O'MARA: That statement that he had given you -- sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event?

GILBREATH: Which two?

O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one.

GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.

O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?

GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time?

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

 

[Zak]

BBM

Agreed

The TH's jumped all over this, it's what they do, next week they'll be jumping all over something else in this case. NG blasts prosecutors suddenly she's credible, lol, next week she'll be blasting someone else.

On JVM there was a former prosecutor on, don't know his name, who basically said what you're saying. Paraphrasing, take a step back, the prosecutor did just fine, it was a bond hearing, they pretty much knew he would get bond, the case hasn't been decided on this one bond hearing. What will be important is the next hearing. Of course then there were defense attorneys who disagree.
One thing I found really interesting, while watching some shows yesterday, were some comments about GZ wearing a suit which is rarely done at bond hearings, some saying that it was a good move on MOM's part, it's all about perception. I found that odd considering how Trayvon's parents were blasted for putting out a picture that was only a few years old, with claims that they were intentionally trying to hide something. Not really that important in the grand scheme of things, just found it interesting.

JMHO

BBM

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/ijvm.01.html

Also on the JVM show:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy, did the prosecution indeed score some points today?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes, I mean, that`s an important narrative. The back story here is an unarmed kid with Skittles is dead and that just should not have happened.

I have to say a couple of things. Number one, we`re not only sort of not focusing on the right stuff I think when we`re talking too much about apologies. It`s not just what injuries did Zimmerman have, but did Martin have any and thus far as far as we know, he had none. I mean aside from the lethal injury, of course, but that`s an indication that Zimmerman is telling the truth when he`s saying I acted in self-defense.

I think the prosecutor got in trouble when the lead investigators said they didn`t have the medical records of Zimmerman`s injuries and I`ll tell you why. They had an ethical responsibility to gather exculpatory evidence. It is an affirmative duty for which you can get in trouble with the bar. So for the lead investigator to say I`ve never seen those records, wow. Wow. That makes me very nervous.

And this:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m sorry. I just want to get in Jayne Weintraub because we have such patient panelists here. Wendy Murphy is saying, oh, my gosh, it would appear that the prosecution was not looking for exculpatory evidence. They could even face censure for that. What do you make of that?

WEINTRAUB: Well, normally I agree with that premise. However, in this particular case I don`t think that`s true because it`s an affirmative defense. If he is saying that his nose was broken, they don`t have an obligation to go look at every doctor -- I mean he wasn`t even treated that night.

This is something we have very liberal discovery laws in Florida that in the course of discovery that O`Mara will provide to the state. That`s the way that this would work.

MURPHY: No, no, Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let Wendy respond. Let Wendy respond.

MURPHY: Jayne`s got it wrong. There is an affirmative defense law component to this but the stand your ground law is a legal grant of outright immunity from prosecution. That is a prosecutorial obligation to know that they cannot as a matter of law, prosecute someone who is standing their ground which means do you believe that you might face deadly force or bodily injury or are you experiencing a felony using force? Is somebody forcibly committing a felony against you?

If you have medical records showing his head is split, his nose is broken, it is unethical for the prosecution not to get that because it is illegal --

 

[mikeysmommom]

Under the law SYG, no where does it say if you shoot a minor this law doesn't apply.JMO Judge will grant GZ a dismissal of charges because he acted within the law.Teenagers can and have attacked and killed people,In today's world you have to watch who you get aggressive with.You never know who is carrying a gun and very prepared to use it.JMO He will walk because he was within the law.As far as GZ lying,is it lies or is what he saying being taken out of context.Yes he did say TM looked like a teen from a distance,then when TM was up close breaking his nose he looked older to him.How is that lying?JMO If you want to see GZ as the devil you will be able to put a spin on everything he says but in the end IMO the law is the law.It is a terrible tragedy that a 17 yr old is dead and I do feel for the parents but if GZ acted within the law then he should not go to jail.IMO he did and will prove it.

 

[jjenny]

While I was listening to the investigator yesterday I sensed there was a lot of pressure put on him to make a case. Just the phrasing he used in the affidavit as MOM pointed out was very telling.

Shouldn't an investigator be objective like maybe looking at GZs medical records? I just cant understand why they did not ask GZ for those.

Prosecution side is supposed to be objective. And yet it appears the investigator admitted they don't have evidence to contradict major parts of GZ's story of self-defense.

 

[Adrienne37]

BBM

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/ijvm.01.html

Also on the JVM show:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy, did the prosecution indeed score some points today?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes, I mean, that`s an important narrative. The back story here is an unarmed kid with Skittles is dead and that just should not have happened.

I have to say a couple of things. Number one, we`re not only sort of not focusing on the right stuff I think when we`re talking too much about apologies. It`s not just what injuries did Zimmerman have, but did Martin have any and thus far as far as we know, he had none. I mean aside from the lethal injury, of course, but that`s an indication that Zimmerman is telling the truth when he`s saying I acted in self-defense.

I think the prosecutor got in trouble when the lead investigators said they didn`t have the medical records of Zimmerman`s injuries and I`ll tell you why. They had an ethical responsibility to gather exculpatory evidence. It is an affirmative duty for which you can get in trouble with the bar. So for the lead investigator to say I`ve never seen those records, wow. Wow. That makes me very nervous.

And this:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m sorry. I just want to get in Jayne Weintraub because we have such patient panelists here. Wendy Murphy is saying, oh, my gosh, it would appear that the prosecution was not looking for exculpatory evidence. They could even face censure for that. What do you make of that?

WEINTRAUB: Well, normally I agree with that premise. However, in this particular case I don`t think that`s true because it`s an affirmative defense. If he is saying that his nose was broken, they don`t have an obligation to go look at every doctor -- I mean he wasn`t even treated that night.

This is something we have very liberal discovery laws in Florida that in the course of discovery that O`Mara will provide to the state. That`s the way that this would work.

MURPHY: No, no, Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let Wendy respond. Let Wendy respond.

MURPHY: Jayne`s got it wrong. There is an affirmative defense law component to this but the stand your ground law is a legal grant of outright immunity from prosecution. That is a prosecutorial obligation to know that they cannot as a matter of law, prosecute someone who is standing their ground which means do you believe that you might face deadly force or bodily injury or are you experiencing a felony using force? Is somebody forcibly committing a felony against you?

If you have medical records showing his head is split, his nose is broken, it is unethical for the prosecution not to get that because it is illegal --

LOL Wendy Murphy has no credibility. Have you managed to catch some of the ridiculous things she spewed regarding Caylee Anthony's case? She has about as much credibility to me as Zimmerman himself does.



~jmo~

 

[Isabelle]

I don't see why now, it's under oath and in a transcript. MOM can pull the transcript of yesterdays hearing when he gets the same investigator on the stand during trial and point to his statements and say 'didn't you testify that you had no evidence of this or that'.

It works the other way too with GZ saying what he said on the stand, it can be used against him.

And would O'Mara be limited to using this against only that particular investigator and not the other one?

 

[jjenny]

And would O'Mara be limited to using this against only that particular investigator and not the other one?

But if the two state investigators are going to contradict each other, I'd think that is not good for the state.

 

[Concerned Papa]

He shouldn't of said then that they have no evidence that GZ didn't walk back to his car. Because he said that, it creates doubt.

He should of said 'we have reason to believe he didn't walk back to his car based on a, b and c'. Not, we have no evidence that he didn't walk back to his car.

I'm a little puzzled by the analysis of this question/answer. The way I read and heard it was he did NOT say they had NO evidence, but instead listed the three very specific points of evidence they DID have. The answer I posted was in response to a question of "Besides that do you have any OTHER evidence....."

Here's a bit more than the part I snipped:

O’MARA: Ok. Besides that any other evidence to support your conclusion that Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow?

GILBREATH: Other than his call and that witness?

O’MARA: Yes.

GILBREATH: And the fact that where it ended up. No.

O’MARA: Well you do have some other evidence don’t you? We had Zimmerman’s statement, don’t you?

GILBREATH: We have Mr. Zimmerman’s statements, we have the shell casings and we had Mr. Martin’s body.

The 3 points listed of (a) Zimmerman's own statements, (b) the shell casing from his gun, AND (c) the body location being so far down the path, are POWERFUL pieces of evidence when taken as a whole.

Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred to see a more authoritative documentation of the facts, but if substance means anything vs style, IMO the a+b+c of this testimony will be very important to a jury.

 

[SuziQ]

I'm not sure what the talking head geniuses think the State should have said at a Bond Hearing, LOL. Do they have no idea of the impact of what was being said in this exchange?



Gilbreath clearly said "We have Mr. Zimmerman's statement", (saying he only followed TM for 18 seconds) "We have the shell casing" (from Zimmerman's gun), and "We have Mr. Martin's body" ( located 233 feet from Zimmerman's vehicle).

Unless you believe it's possible to walk 233 feet in 18 seconds, what else does anyone think is needed to prove he continued to follow Trayvon? :waitasec:

ITA. The walking back to the car story puts GZ and Trayvon even further away from where we know the shooting happened. Unless they beamed themselves around from spot to spot it just did not happen. Contrary to what some would like me to believe. It would be against the law of physics. Just like a gun can't travel around a building and shoot itself.

 

[cityslick]

And would O'Mara be limited to using this against only that particular investigator and not the other one?

That I don't know, we would have to ask a lawyer that. I would assume since he's working with the other investigator on the same case that he would know if they (as an investigative unit) had certain evidence or not.

To me, it was a huge risk by MOM asking those questions. Discovery hasn't even happened yet and the Det. could of easily said 'we have some evidence that we will provide in discovery'. That would of left egg on face.

 

[Phoenixfla]

I would be shocked there were not some serious changes made to the law as a result of this case, no matter the result. It's too bad that something tragic has to happen and that protests and outrage need to happen in order to shine the light on something that was flawed to begin with.

If you mean SYG I think we first should see if it applies to this case.