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

[lauriej]

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

--and this "one deed" is what-----hitting the PayPal button?

 

[cityslick]

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:



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 is very important to a jury.

It's contradictory to this exchange. He's saying they have no evidence of him walking back to his car or not.

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.

 

[RANCH]

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~

I would have to say it would be a bit confusing to a jury if they hear one state investigator say one thing and another one saying something different. JMO.

 

[LolaMoon08]

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.

But, it was raining. It would have smeared... especially in the grass... kinda like how George's head should have looked -- but didn't. There wasn't even any wet grass or dirt on his head!

MOO

 

[MsCharlieChan]

Why in the world would Zimmerman get on the witness stand and admit that he didn't know if the person he murdered was armed or not? Wouldn't an average person rather err on the side of caution instead of possibly taking the life of someone who was unarmed? Again, it fits with the reason that the prosecution is filing a second degree murder charge.

~jmo~

I, too, find that particular statement on the stand by GZ problematic. But for a different reason... IT'S ANOTHER GZ CONCOCTION.

Big, bad criminals packing heat do not run away scared like TM did. They let you know right away if they have a gun, so you'll get scared and leave them alone.

Similarly, it is highly improbable that GZ ran away from this "kid," when he knew he had his own heat in his waistband.

People carrying guns aren't usually motivated to run away. However, when carrying a gun, you may feel invincible and go after someone.

GZ very likely realized early in the game that TM was unarmed. If TM allegedly circled GZ's truck and/or confronted him there, that would have been the perfect time for TM to gesture that he had a gun. If that didn't happen, GZ knew he could chase and bully this kid, because he himself had a gun.

 

[Donjeta]

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.

Wait, what? His statement contradicts his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

 

[CHICANA]

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

He was never convicted, so it shouldn't even be an issue. Plus maybe the judge knows the facts behind the prior accusations. I mean really, how many young people have had fights with their boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses and called the cops ?

 

[SuziQ]

Because of this part:

O'MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don't they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O'MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O'MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn't consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.

IMO, the gist is not that the injuries didn't occur or that they were or were not caused by cement, it's the implication that they do not match up with GZ's interviews and do not match up with evidence at the scene.

They do not match up with the crime scene and the stories GZ told LE.

I was going over the transcript last night and this was something I wanted to address and post. I need to go to the grocery story shortly and will try to get to it when I get back.

 

[lauriej]

--interesting take from this lawyer..

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/ng.01.html


GRACE: All right, to you, Daryl Parks, in response to my question, did it help him or hurt him to make the surprise move to take the stand today, Mr. Parks?

PARKS: I think it`s too early to judge, Nancy. This was a bond hearing. And so him taking the stand was for his bond purposes only. When they try to get to weigh the evidence in the case, the prosecution in no type of way was going to put on the evidence in today`s hearing and they didn`t. So to criticize them for the small evidence they did offer is not to the case.

GRACE: Hold on Parks.

TAAFFE: You`re grabbing at straws.

GRACE: You are right. ( to TAAFFE ) I don`t think your name is Daryl Parks, unless you`ve had a legal name change. But, Parks, here is my problem with him not having the answers. No, this is not in front of a jury, so in the big scheme it doesn`t matter.

But, when the same witness gets on the stand at jury time, he`s going to be cross-examined on the fact that today, April 20, he didn`t know the answer to any of these questions. That`s going to be a problem at trial. Mark my words on that.

TAAFFE: Beyond a reasonable doubt.

GRACE: Take Taaffe down.

PARKS: It`s important --

GRACE: Go ahead, Parks.

PARKS: That they would take us through the probable cause affidavit right, and they were going line by line. It was clear to me. I was in the courtroom that this guy didn`t quite understand the questions Mr. O`Mara was trying to get into.

When we get in trial, you`re going to have live witnesses presenting the evidence. But most importantly, the lawyers will be able to put into context in their opening statement and in the closing. So, I think you got to take into this totality --

--IMO--the SA came to a bond hearing, knowing full well that george would get a bond anyway---they weren't about to lay out all of their evidence yesterday-----saving it for their end game, a conviction at the REAL trial.

 

[cityslick]

Wait, what? His statement contradicts his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

That's not how I read (or heard it). I think he's saying they only have GZ saying he walked back to his car, they don't have any evidence to support or deny that statement.

 

[CHICANA]

Why in the world would Zimmerman get on the witness stand and admit that he didn't know if the person he murdered was armed or not? Wouldn't an average person rather err on the side of caution instead of possibly taking the life of someone who was unarmed? Again, it fits with the reason that the prosecution is filing a second degree murder charge.

I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html



~jmo~

I don't know if I'd risk my life to err on the side of caution.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Because of this part:

O'MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don't they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O'MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O'MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn't consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.

That part has nothing to do with the subject that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over. The SA was saying the story of Trayvon slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete over and over was not true because of the injuries he received. The police know what a head looks like when slammed over and over on concrete.


O'MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don't they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was. (he does not say the injuries are consistent with Zimmerman's story which is the important part.)

O'MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be. (he could have gone on and said any hard object)

O'MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn't consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was. (He is saying it was consistent with hitting a harder object. Not that it is consistent with Zimmerman's story.)

 

[Adrienne37]

--interesting take from this lawyer..

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/ng.01.html


GRACE: All right, to you, Daryl Parks, in response to my question, did it help him or hurt him to make the surprise move to take the stand today, Mr. Parks?

PARKS: I think it`s too early to judge, Nancy. This was a bond hearing. And so him taking the stand was for his bond purposes only. When they try to get to weigh the evidence in the case, the prosecution in no type of way was going to put on the evidence in today`s hearing and they didn`t. So to criticize them for the small evidence they did offer is not to the case.

GRACE: Hold on Parks.

TAAFFE: You`re grabbing at straws.

GRACE: You are right. ( to TAAFFE ) I don`t think your name is Daryl Parks, unless you`ve had a legal name change. But, Parks, here is my problem with him not having the answers. No, this is not in front of a jury, so in the big scheme it doesn`t matter.

But, when the same witness gets on the stand at jury time, he`s going to be cross-examined on the fact that today, April 20, he didn`t know the answer to any of these questions. That`s going to be a problem at trial. Mark my words on that.

TAAFFE: Beyond a reasonable doubt.

GRACE: Take Taaffe down.

PARKS: It`s important --

GRACE: Go ahead, Parks.

PARKS: That they would take us through the probable cause affidavit right, and they were going line by line. It was clear to me. I was in the courtroom that this guy didn`t quite understand the questions Mr. O`Mara was trying to get into.

When we get in trial, you`re going to have live witnesses presenting the evidence. But most importantly, the lawyers will be able to put into context in their opening statement and in the closing. So, I think you got to take into this totality --

--IMO--the SA came to a bond hearing, knowing full well that george would get a bond anyway---they weren't about to lay out all of their evidence yesterday-----saving it for their end game, a conviction at the REAL trial.

Thanks LaurieJ! I agree 100% with you. All yesterday amounted to was a horse and pony show IMO. Smoke and mirrors if you will.


~jmo~

 

[LolaMoon08]

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 --

What if there are no medical records? I know that George claims to have them -- does Mr. O'Mara have them? We don't even know when George went to the doctor? What if when he showed up the next day, and all those neighbors seen the bandages, they were self-applied and not applied by a doctor? What if George didn't go to the doctor until a week later? Two weeks later? Even three weeks later when this case hit the media?

And really, George's injuries, don't even have anything to do with their case as they believe George not only followed Trayvon, but confronted Trayvon, which I believe can be proven by the location of the body because it totally refutes the story of George walking to check the street address and walking back to his car when Trayvon jumped him from behind.

MOO

 

[m00c0w]

These quotes are very sad and scary imo.
Basically what the stabbing case means to me is that coldblooded murder is now legal in Florida, and that if you get into trouble because you recklessly disregard everyone's safety you can legally kill people to avoid the consequences of your actions.

Dude shouldn't have committed a forcible felony under Florida law that allowed the use of deadly force. It's that simple; it really is. If you don't feel a stereo is worth your life, don't steal the stereo.

 

[Concerned Papa]

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.

Let me ask you something, CS, do you think a Bond Hearing is the appropriate place for the State to lay all their cards on the table to the defense?

Consider the last two lines from above:

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.

IMO, the State WANTS Zimmerman to continue saying he got out of his car and followed TM for 18 seconds. They want him to continue his ridiculous claim of breaking off his pursuit when the dispatcher told him to stop, because as long as he keeps saying this, how will he ever be able to account for a dead body 233 feet from his vehicle with his shell casing along side?

They don't need anything besides his own statements that he is even further locked into, after yesterday, to prove his story is a lie.

The state knows all about this time frame issue being a huge problem for Zimmerman. Why would they lay those cards on the table at this point in time?

 

[magnolia]

Of course they knew he was going to get bond. The state's stipulation was that he be required to wear an ankle bracelet. People think that Zimmerman won a big round in court yesterday but sadly it's not the case. The prosecution made it through the entire hearing without revealing anything they have in evidence. Just like I said, Zimmerman's goose is cooked and with his self-serving "apology" and his contradictory statements under examination by Bernie De La Rionda, I can't wait until we get to trial. Hmmm, second degree murder carries a life sentence. How in the world is Zimmerman going to spend the rest of his life behind bars??


~jmo~

I don't agree. The SA tried to paint a picture of a violent man. They were not successful. If the Judge thought GZ was a threat in anyway, he would have refused to give him bond. He would have also set the bail much higher. IMO

I don't know how this is all going to play out. However,I am confident Zimmerman will not be convicted of 2nd degree murder. After seeing O'Mara in action, I think he has a good chance of being successful at the immunity hearing. We have not seen the best of O'Mara. The best is yet to come. IMO

 

[Zak]

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~

Many ridiculous things were said about the Caylee Anthony case by many people. I don't know much about Wendy Muphy, other than she is an attorney and former prosecutor. Therefore, she must know the law having passed the bar.

 

[SuziQ]

That's not how I read (or heard it). I think he's saying they only have GZ saying he walked back to his car, they don't have any evidence to support or deny that statement.

This is how I read this as well. The problem for GZ is when the SA impeaches his statement with the various versions he evidently gave.

 

[LolaMoon08]

He was never convicted, so it shouldn't even be an issue. Plus maybe the judge knows the facts behind the prior accusations. I mean really, how many young people have had fights with their boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses and called the cops ?

A lot of rapist are never convicted or even arrested for one reason or another -- Doesn't make them any less of a rapist? Women, since the beginning of time, have found themselves in abusive relationships and it's never even reported -- does that make them any less a woman abuser?

Of course George Zimmerman's violent history is an issue! I actually find it hard to believe that some people don't look at it as a big issue? He's put his hands, violently, on two women and a member of Law Enforcement? He has a habit of putting his hands on people when he shouldn't.

MOO