17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #35

[Adrienne37]

GILBREATH: I have no indication what he picked up from other officers at the scene. I know from reading reports there were witnesses gathered around while he was still at the scene. And this was prior to their having statements taken from them. So I don't know what he picked up from overheard conversations.

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

 

[Just K]

I guarantee you, by the time this all goes to trial GZ will have tweaked his story to fit all of the available discovery. That is what defense teams do. And, if they can't do that, they ask convoluted an irrelevant questions to confuse the witnesses. They do this also to confuse the jury and cause them to second guess the witnesses.

 

[jjenny]

GILBREATH: I have no indication what he picked up from other officers at the scene. I know from reading reports there were witnesses gathered around while he was still at the scene. And this was prior to their having statements taken from them. So I don't know what he picked up from overheard conversations.

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

Well wouldn't that apply to any witness in any situation, including witnesses state is going to call? You don't know what these witnesses picked and where. Like some person supposedly saw shadows running? And that's somehow convincing? When exactly did this witness came forward?

 

[Adrienne37]

Well wouldn't that apply to any witness in any situation, including witnesses state is going to call? You don't know what these witnesses picked and where.

Yep, that could very well be the case but it's not their life on the line. Zimmerman has proven himself to be quite the embellisher and I've no doubt that we will see the full extent of his embellishments when we receive the first document dump.


~jmo~

 

[jjenny]

My point is, the idea that you don't know who picked what where can be used to discredit any witness/victim. Unless right after the fact they are locked up in a vacuum. Are those the tactics state is going to use?

 

[Adrienne37]

I guarantee you, by the time this all goes to trial GZ will have tweaked his story to fit all of the available discovery. That is what defense teams do. And, if they can't do that, they ask convoluted an irrelevant questions to confuse the witnesses. They do this also to confuse the jury and cause them to second guess the witnesses.

Yes indeed. He will either tweak the story to suit his purpose or claim that he doesn't remember.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I understand. But I thought you were going to address your honor, Judge Lester, not -- so that's really addressed to the family and where the media happens to be, correct, Mr. Zimmerman?

ZIMMERMAN: No, to the mother and the father.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you've done or their loss?

ZIMMERMAN: No sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never stated that, did you?

ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember what I said. I believe I did say that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told that to the police?

ZIMMERMAN: In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You did.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?

ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, all the names run together.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you remember if it was a male or a female?

ZIMMERMAN: There were both males and females.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the time you made that statement that you were sorry?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And let me make sure the record's clear, you stated exactly what to those detectives?

ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember exactly what -- verbatim.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you're saying you expressed concern for the loss of Mr. Martin, or that you had shot Mr. Martin, that you actually felt sorry for him.

ZIMMERMAN: I felt sorry that they lost their child, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so you told detectives that you wanted them to convey that to the parents?

ZIMMERMAN: I don't know if they were detectives or not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Officers, I apologize.

ZIMMERMAN: I didn't know if they were going to convey it or not. I just made the statement.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. And then you said that you called them or you left a message for them to tell them that?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you wait 50 something days to tell them -- that is, the parents?

ZIMMERMAN: I don't understand the question, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you wait so long to tell Mr. Martin and the victim's mother, the father and mother, why did you wait so long to tell them?

ZIMMERMAN: I was told not to communicate with them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. So even through your attorney, you didn't ask to do it right away? Your former attorneys or anything.

ZIMMERMAN: I did ask them to express that to them. And they said that they were going to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested -- I'm sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?

ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then the following morning. Is that correct?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"?


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

 

[Just K]

Since we are fairly certain that there were some IPHONES involved on the night Trayvon was killed, I hope that the GPS coordinates can be mapped on all of the phones in question. T'Mobile does not have the IPhone but many smart phones are similar to IPhones and will give exact coordinates down to the foot.

GZ's story, about where he was just prior to TM being killed, may not even come close to what GPS could prove. It certainly would be nice if someone had a video of the whole thing or if TM or his GF had pressed the record button on their phones...now that would be something.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I guarantee you, by the time this all goes to trial GZ will have tweaked his story to fit all of the available discovery. That is what defense teams do. And, if they can't do that, they ask convoluted an irrelevant questions to confuse the witnesses. They do this also to confuse the jury and cause them to second guess the witnesses.

I'm not concerned about the defendant's ability to "tweak" his storyline in this case because of the unique circumstance of time unlike any murder charge I have ever seen or heard of before. This entire crime's timeline only spanned seven minutes and seven seconds from the beginning of the 911 call at 7:09:34 pm up to and including the gunshot at 7:16:41 pm. LE's first responder was on the scene THIRTY SECONDS later at 7:17:11 pm.

Unique to any case I've ever followed, through the 911 call, we've all HEARD this crime's beginning, the first 4 minutes and 7 seconds of it's duration, AND it's ending when the gunshot was fired that killed Trayvon. There's only three minutes we didn't hear!

• We KNOW that GZ got out of his vehicle and started following TM at [2:08] into the call because we all heard it.

• We KNOW that the dispatcher told GZ eighteen seconds later, at [2:26] into the call, "We don't need you to do that" because we all heard it.

When his statements to LE regarding his path of travel and actions have been verified by his father, his attorney, and the City Manager of Sanford, FL as essentially being that:

He got out of his vehicle......followed TM for 18 seconds until the dispatcher told him not to do that.....then continued 140 feet to the next street over for an address.....then turned and was walking back to his vehicle for 97 feet and was attacked by TM where the sidewalks intersect.

• How's he going to be able to "tweak" his way past a story that a jury will hear evidence and probably see, that the total distance traveled would only take an average adult male about 54 seconds to walk?

• How's he going to convince a jury that the attack his statements say happened at 7:12:54 pm, would have occurred before he ever got off the 911 call at 7:13:41 pm?

• How's he going to "tweak" his statements that say the attack happened THREE MINUTES before the jury, like all of us, heard the fatal gunshot?

• Equally important and possibly most importantly of all, how's he ever going to "tweak" his statements to account for being found by LE less than a minute after firing the fatal gunshot, hundreds of feet in the OPPOSITE direction from the vehicle he was supposedly headed towards, with a dead body and the murder weapon?

How's he ever going to prevent a jury from connecting these dots?

 

[CathyinTexas]

Not the witness that saw red.

I got the impression from the bond hearing or other reference that we don't know of all the witnesses and their statements because SA is keeping them close to the vest, so to speak. I can't imagine that they would bring these charges unless they have credible witnesses that corroborate each other and other evidence to back the charge up. If there are multiple witnesses and say 3 witnesses give the same account, or close and one loan witness gives a different account, what would they go with? I would think the majority wins and they would think the lone witness's testimony is unreliable. just guessing and jmo.

 

[Gin]

I'm not concerned about the defendant's ability to "tweak" his storyline in this case because of the unique circumstance of time unlike any murder charge I have ever seen or heard of before. This entire crime's timeline only spanned seven minutes and seven seconds from the beginning of the 911 call at 7:09:34 pm up to and including the gunshot at 7:16:41 pm. LE's first responder was on the scene THIRTY SECONDS later at 7:17:11 pm.

Unique to any case I've ever followed, through the 911 call, we've all HEARD this crime's beginning, the first 4 minutes and 7 seconds of it's duration, AND it's ending when the gunshot was fired that killed Trayvon. There's only three minutes we didn't hear!

• We KNOW that GZ got out of his vehicle and started following TM at [2:08] into the call because we all heard it.

• We KNOW that the dispatcher told GZ eighteen seconds later, at [2:26] into the call, "We don't need you to do that" because we all heard it.

When his statements to LE regarding his path of travel and actions have been verified by his father, his attorney, and the City Manager of Sanford, FL as essentially being that:

He got out of his vehicle......followed TM for 18 seconds until the dispatcher told him not to do that.....then continued 140 feet to the next street over for an address.....then turned and was walking back to his vehicle for 97 feet and was attacked by TM where the sidewalks intersect.

• How's he going to be able to "tweak" his way past a story that a jury will hear evidence and probably see, that the total distance traveled would only take an average adult male about 54 seconds to walk?

• How's he going to convince a jury that the attack his statements say happened at 7:12:54 pm, wouldn't have occurred before he ever got off the 911 call at 7:13:41 pm?

• How's he going to "tweak" his statements that say the attack happened THREE MINUTES before they, like all of us, heard the fatal gunshot?

• Equally important and possibly most importantly of all, how's he ever going to "tweak" his statements to account for being found by LE less than a minute after firing the fatal gunshot, hundreds of feet in the OPPOSITE direction from the vehicle he was supposedly headed towards, with a dead body and the murder weapon?

How's he ever going to prevent a jury from connecting these dots?

Very helpful post!

Do you think these points were the reason MOM was so eager to attempt to "argue" his case at the bond hearing? (meaning it will be a lot harder down the road when he's trying to discredit phone records, 911 records and his own clients statements...)

 

[CathyinTexas]

You know you are right. Even the male caller on the 911 tape says they were wrestling.

Then it appears his story changes and I wonder why it changed?

Neighbor #1, male - Call begins 4:12

Police … I just heard a shot right behind my house. [4:14] They’re wrestling right in the back of my porch.

http://www.examiner.com/article/nei...-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martin-transcribed

The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...led-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1tQLEF3n1

I still wonder if this John is the only witness who states this. Another witness said she saw the person who was on top get up immediately insinuating he was on top. It is amazing to me that a person who was beaten the way GZ describes could get up so quickly and not appear to be seriously injured by the witnesses. But I don't believe he was. Given the circumstances he seemed to protect himself well during the time TM struggled and pleaded for his life. jmo

 

[badme102]

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/La...ence/-/1637132/12190668/-/g2ilu2/-/index.html

Lawyer: Angela Corey missed deadline to release evidence
Fight over public's right to know intensifies as lawyers disagree about record law

Updated On: Apr 29 2012 11:11:12 AM EDT

I'm still confused about this 'deadline'.

 

[Adrienne37]

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/La...ence/-/1637132/12190668/-/g2ilu2/-/index.html

Lawyer: Angela Corey missed deadline to release evidence
Fight over public's right to know intensifies as lawyers disagree about record law

Updated On: Apr 29 2012 11:11:12 AM EDT

I'm still confused about this 'deadline'.

She didn't miss the deadline. The judge addressed this issue in court on Friday. Both sides would like all personal information about witnesses, etc. redacted out of the documents so they are working on that and this was agreed upon by the defense as well. Once the state turns the documents over to the defense, the media/public has a right to obtain them as well so they are taking care to make sure all pertinent information is readcted prior to the hand over. The judge further stated this wasn't a problem as he would not be telling either side how to run their cases.


~jmo~

 

[LambChop]

He doesn't need to do the testing personally to have insight. He just needs to know of the results of such testing.

He can't testify because he did not order the test, did not go over the test, he is only aware of the test. He cannot testify as to who the voice belongs to. He testified correctly. He has no intuitive knowledge regarding the voice on that tape. If MOM really wanted someone to say that was GZ's voice on the tape he should have brought in his own witness.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insight

jmo

 

[Concerned Papa]

Very helpful post!

Do you think these points were the reason MOM was so eager to attempt to "argue" his case at the bond hearing? (meaning it will be a lot harder down the road when he's trying to discredit phone records, 911 records and his own clients statements...)

I don't know for sure, but my opinion is that Attorney O'Mara hasn't had this case long enough to realize the disparity that exists between his repeated questioning of the witness to make his point of GZ's statements saying he was walking AWAY and towards his vehicle:

O'MARA: So he said before he knew anyone else saw or did not see what had happened, he gave a statement saying he went back to his car, correct?

GILBREATH: No. Towards his car.

O'MARA: Sorry. You're right. He went towards his car. Seemingly away from Mr. Martin, though, correct?

Only to turn around and VOLUNTEER for the record the following:

O’MARA: How do you know he was trying to return to his home?

GILBREATH: Because the location he was found in….is probably….and I don’t have the exact measurements….it’s in the path to the back door of the house where he was staying.

O’MARA: I think the evidence suggested it was 70 yards away, right?

It seems apparent to me that he may not realize just how far down that back sidewalk the NY Times said TM's back door, and conversely AWAY from GZ's vehicle, would actually be:

 

[LambChop]

Then how could he testify whether head injuries were consistent with head being struck on the concrete or not? He isn't an expert in that area either.

He has the EMT's report which is part of his investigation. MOM asked if his injuries were consistent with hitting his head on cement and Gilbreath said they were consistent with hitting an object harder than his head, yes. That report was included in his investigation and there is a good chance he interviewed the EMT at the scene who treated GZ so he'd have first hand knowledge whereas the OS testing was not. I know it's confusing but the difference is what is included in his report and what is not. The voice testing was not, other than Mrs. Martin said it was her son's voice. jmo

 

[jjenny]

She didn't miss the deadline. The judge addressed this issue in court on Friday. Both sides would like all personal information about witnesses, etc. redacted out of the documents so they are working on that and this was agreed upon by the defense as well. Once the state turns the documents over to the defense, the media/public has a right to obtain them as well so they are taking care to make sure all pertinent information is readcted prior to the hand over. The judge further stated this wasn't a problem as he would not be telling either side how to run their cases.


~jmo~

There are two different issues. One issue is how long defense has to wait to get the evidence. The other issue is to how long public has to wait to see the evidence. Even if a lawyer for Zimmerman might have agreed to wait longer, the lawyer for public access apparently didn't.

 

[LambChop]

There are two different issues. One issue is how long defense has to wait to get the evidence. The other issue is to how long public has to wait to see the evidence. Even if a lawyer for Zimmerman might have agreed to wait longer, the lawyer for public access apparently didn't.

I believe it was MOM who brought it up initially because of his concerns to protect the witnesses even if it meant holding discovery up a week. SA did not release them Friday as scheduled so it might appear there was a prior agreement between the State and defense before this court hearing regarding public access. Wasn't this hearing scheduled originally to keep the discovery from being sealed. That was the issue for the public access attorney, I think. jmo

 

[Adrienne37]

There are two different issues. One issue is how long defense has to wait to get the evidence. The other issue is to how long public has to wait to see the evidence. Even if a lawyer for Zimmerman might have agreed to wait longer, the lawyer for public access apparently didn't.

I'm quite certain that the judge will have this information ironed out. Additionally, O'Mara indicates that the 15 days doesn't even begin until the arraignment which is set for May 8th.


~jmo~

 

[jjenny]

I believe it was MOM who brought it up initially because of his concerns to protect the witnesses even if it meant holding discovery up a week. SA did not release them Friday as schedule so it might appear there was a prior agreement between the State and defense before this court hearing regarding public access. jmo

MOM might be fine with it. Lawyer for the media clearly isn't.