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

[Donjeta]

What was the street address he was supposedly checking anyway? Why did he need that address if it's not
a) where he was waiting for the police
b) where Trayvon was
c) where his truck was?

 

[CHICANA]

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.)

Could be cement

 

[cityslick]

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?

It's not about what I think, it's about what a jury thinks when MOM pulls the transcript of this hearing on cross exam during the real trial and tells Gilbreath 'you said you had no evidence of him going back to his car'

That's reasonable doubt. That puts it in the mind of a juror that 'well, how can I be 100% confident that he didn't walk back to his car when the detective doesn't have evidence that he walked back to his car or not'.

I was shocked he said it like that, with an affirmative 'no'. Based on what we know. Based on your posts on distances and how it's very unlikely he did.

 

[LolaMoon08]

How many of you would be happy with one of your daughters bringing George Zimmerman home knowing his history?

How many of you would feel safe allowing your children to go out and play in your neighborhood knowing George Zimmerman is there watching everything -- with a loaded gun?

 

[Aedrys]

--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.

Exactly. Great post. The TH's have leaped on this to prove that the SA has no case. It was BOND hearing. The SA doesn't have to lay out their case at all at least until the preliminary hearing, if there is one (I think it would come after the SYG determination?). Yesterday was to determine bond only, not for either side to prove their case. That is not necessary to determine bond. The TH's are making wild conclusions with this one officer's testimony. We don't know what or how much evidence the SA has yet. How ridiculous for the TH's to sensationalize it as if it could stop the trial from ever happening. Good Lord.

 

[Adrienne37]

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

He thinks he's above the law is what it amounts too. Perhaps had he been held accountable for the violence in his past, Trayvon would still be alive today.

ETA - a leopard doesn't change it's spots.




~jmo~

 

[Zak]

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

BBM

Yes, Mr. O'Mara had them in court yesterday and said he would give them to the state.

 

[Aedrys]

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.

Yep, and the TH's aren't talking about that, are they? Oh no, one statement from the officer is making this case done for. Please. Talk about throwing out a red herring to deflect from GZ's changing stories. That's all this is.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Just getting here today and haven't had a chance to catch up. My apologies if this has already been posted. Interesting article...

Experts say Zimmerman attorney made smart move
By MIKE SCHNEIDER, AP
8 hours ago

SANFORD, Fla. — By questioning a state investigator on the witness stand during a routine bail hearing, George Zimmerman's defense attorney showed some of the weaknesses in prosecutors' claims that the neighborhood watch volunteer committed second-degree murder, legal experts say.

A judge ruled Friday that Zimmerman can be released on $150,000 bail while he awaits trial on murdering 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a Feb. 26 confrontation in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman apologized to Martin's parents, who were in the courtroom for the bail hearing, in a surprise appearance on the witness stand. Zimmerman is pleading not guilty and claims self-defense...

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120420/US.Neighborhood.Watch/

 

[TonyGatto]

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.

That is the MAJOR difference between this car stereo example case and the TM case. There's no evidence TM was doing anything wrong, let alone committing a forcible felony against the man who ended up killing him. Apples and oranges.

 

[Isabelle]

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

O'Mara claimed to have the medical record in court yesterday and waved them in the air!

 

[Donjeta]

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.

If Florida law says that you can chase down and kill someone for revenge because he stole your stereo although he is running away and no longer a threat to you or your property it is a horrible and immoral law that legalizes coldblooded murder.

Maybe Florida has better stereos than I do but no home electronics of mine are worth taking a life for.

Anybody can be murdered without consequence, just take your stereo with you and claim that the victim stole it.

:cow:

 

[m00c0w]

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~

And the investigator that testified swore to all of the same things the second did. It wasn't divided by who wrote what. They both affirmed the same knowledge. He should have been privy to all of the same evidence. It really does put the prosecution in a tight spot. Either he perjured himself on the stand, perjured himself in the affidavit, or is just plain incompetent. None of these are a good thing to start out with.

 

[m00c0w]

That is the MAJOR difference between this car stereo example case and the TM case. There's no evidence TM was doing anything wrong, let alone committing a forcible felony against the man who ended up killing him. Apples and oranges.

Where did I say otherwise?

 

[TonyGatto]

BBM

Yes, Mr. O'Mara had them in court yesterday and said he would give them to the state.

Re: medical documents that GZ had broken nose.

Mr. O'Mara waived a piece of paper. That's it.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Could be cement

Could be a stick, a shoe, a rock, a toy, end of a garden hose and on and on and on. But the one thing for sure it was not was "Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over." according to the SA.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Let us not also forget George aggressively chasing another motorist in his car. Putting God knows how many innocent lives in danger. He has issues of not wanting pay his rent to a landlord and even not wanting to pay someone for the services they provided. Let's also not forget that he threw himself a party for a degree he didn't even have! Even gave a lovely speech to all those who showed up because they made him the man he was. :banghead:

He's an aggressive man and has a disturbing sense of entitlement.

MOO

 

[TonyGatto]

Where did I say otherwise?

I never said you said otherwise. I think we're in agreement. No need to assume you're being attacked when someone is actually agreeing with you.

 

[LolaMoon08]

BBM

Yes, Mr. O'Mara had them in court yesterday and said he would give them to the state.

Oh good! It took long enough for George to prove he had them -- now let us see them -- and let us see the date he went for medical care. We need a doc. dump --- with his original statements, both recorded and written.

 

[Concerned Papa]

It's not about what I think, it's about what a jury thinks when MOM pulls the transcript of this hearing on cross exam during the real trial and tells Gilbreath 'you said you had no evidence of him going back to his car'

That's reasonable doubt. That puts it in the mind of a juror that 'well, how can I be 100% confident that he didn't walk back to his car when the detective doesn't have evidence that he walked back to his car or not'.

I was shocked he said it like that, with an affirmative 'no'. Based on what we know. Based on your posts on distances and how it's very unlikely he did.

You would be completely correct in the above scenario if it wasn't for one little detail, and that's Gilbreath's truthful answer to the question I have highlighted above:

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

I don't see how the State will ever need more than Zimmerman's own words to impeach his story.