What evidence does the prosecution have?

[wishuwerehere]

We have seen the affidavit. Even Mr. Alan Dershowitz has commented on the official affidavit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577340382252146286.html

Or if you want the actual, official pdf.

We're talking about two different things here. I was talking about the girlfriend's actual testimony. Her affidavit. Not the probable cause affidavit.

 

[AJ Noiter]

We're talking about two different things here. I was talking about the girlfriend's actual testimony. Her affidavit. Not the probable cause affidavit.

Then I apologize for my misunderstanding. I thought I was replying to these words:

We haven't seen the affidavit.

On the subject of a transcript of her statement, I doubt we ever will see it. That was my original point to you

 

[wishuwerehere]

Thank God we don't send people to prison for life on assumptions.

And thank God we don't take a <modsnip> word for it.

jmo

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Even if he lied and lost ALL of his credibility, that doesn't amount to proof of the opposite conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, though. jmo

ETA: I should have said "beleive" he lied b/c short of George saying that he lied, conclusions about his credibility are just subjective impressions. jmo

Consciousness of guilt is evidence in court. Combine it with all the evidence they say they have he is in trouble. IMO

 

[wishuwerehere]

Being that the probable cause affidavit itself was being questioned, I believe it would be in the scope of questioning to ask "Do you have ANYTHING that conflicts with my client's story?"

I guess since the prosecution did not object, their case must be much stronger than both of us believe, huh?

 

[Elley Mae]

What I mean is, I don't think it's common for an adult to slip and fall flat on their back and cut the top of their head, twice, unless maybe he caught the side of the cement walk and bounced. The natural instinct for an adult is to brace themselves. It seems GZ would have had other injuries/scratches/bruises, if he had fallen backwards on the cement and tried to stop the fall at all. Besides, the g/f never said he was being chased and the strange guy just busted his a$$.

JMO

Don't forget the dog:beagle: maybe he tripped them

 

[AngelWings444]

He didn't say, "this @$$*** is not going to get away", as if he was going to make sure of it. He said, "these @$$*** always get away", as if resigned to another one getting away.

JMO

I did not say THIS @sshole. I said "another" on accident. "THESE @sshole's always get away," is not being "resigned to another one getting away." BTW, is the last statement of your quote your opinion? I think we need to specify this when inserting things that are not proof. There is proof that GZ was not "resigned to another one getting away", by GZ following Trayvon, against the 911 operator telling him not to follow.

JMO.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I guess since the prosecution did not object, their case must be much stronger that both of us believe, huh?

It tells me they have a pretty weak case, to be honest. I don't think they had the option to object to that question, but someone who is more informed can state factually. I'd find it hard to believe that the State could have objected and didn't.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Don't forget the dog:beagle: maybe he tripped them

Do you think that might have happened? Do you know where that dog went when it was loose?

 

[wishuwerehere]

It tells me they have a pretty weak case, to be honest. I don't think they had the option to object to that question, but someone who is more informed can state factually. I'd find it hard to believe that the State could have objected and didn't.

We'll have to wait and see. I did enjoy debating with you. :clap:

Until next time...

 

[Elley Mae]

Do you think that might have happened? Do you know where that dog went when it was loose?

It is my opinion that the dog is not a player in the case. The dog probably ran home.

 

[RANCH]

Ohhhhhhh.....I think we need a little linky dink for this one because I don't think that is even close to what Mr. Gilbreath said at all. I believe both he and the SA said there were inconsistencies in GZ's statements. jmo

Maybe this can help. From the bond hearing.

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.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

O'MARA: Ok. Now, you know as one of the chief investigators that is the primary focus in this case, is it not?

GILBREATH: There are many focuses in this case.

O'MARA: That would be considered the primary, would it not, in your opinion, 35 years experience?

GILBREATH: I don't know that it's primary. It's one of the concerns, yes.

O'MARA: Nothing further.

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

 

[sleonardelli]

I would like to know what that horseshoe shaped wound is.

Is there another (enhanced?) that shows a horseshoe-shaped wound? Wow, that's interesting. Could've cracked his head falling.

 

[Elley Mae]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense?lite

Brown's son was walking the family dog when he saw the person lying on the ground, she said. He went to help, but the dog escaped from its leash, so he went chasing after it rather than rushing to the person, she said.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Is there another (enhanced?) that shows a horseshoe-shaped wound? Wow, that's interesting. Could've cracked his head falling.

Where the arrows are pointing.

 

[Karmady]

Consciousness of guilt is evidence in court. Combine it with all the evidence they say they have he is in trouble. IMO

Here's the Fla. Supreme Court standard for admissibility of consciousness of guilt:

The Third District concluded that &#8220;[a] defendant's behavior is circumstantial evidence probative of his consciousness of his guilt, and ultimately guilt itself, only when it can be said that the behavior is &#8216;susceptible of no prima facie explanation except consciousness of guilt.&#8217;&#8201;&#8221; &#8194;Id. at 20 (quoting Esperti, 220 So.2d at 418).

Because we find its analysis sound and approve of its result, we quote Judge Pearson's opinion in Herring at length:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1378873.html

What do you think is evidence of George's consciousness of guilt that is susceptible of no other prima facie explanation? Imo, that standard requires a lot more than some inconsistent statements (if there are any). In the Herring case cited by the Supreme Court, the witness sat on his hands to prevent LE from performing a gun shot residue test, just for example.

Eta: In Herring, the dude also , "wip[ed] his hands with a handkerchief, and tr[ied] to rub tobacco ashes on his hands after learning that the ingredient in gunpowder can be confused with cigarette ashes."

 

[Dr.Fessel]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense?lite

Brown's son was walking the family dog when he saw the person lying on the ground, she said. He went to help, but the dog escaped from its leash, so he went chasing after it rather than rushing to the person, she said.

Here are the words right out of his own mouth. Worth listening carefully too. I never saw this till yesterday.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/vide...essed-part-of-Trayvon-Zimmerman-confrontation

 

[BiancaS]

They should have objected.

However, Gilbreath can only answer about what he is aware at the time of the question. It was and is an ongoing investigation.

jmo

What should have happened is MOM should have subpoenaed the investigators to appear at the hearing. They would have come prepared to answer questions. They were only there at AC's request, simply to observe the hearing. The other investigator was also there, he was not called by MOM to testify. I'm pretty sure that MOM's intent was to get Discovery info without it being released and he didn't want them to come to the hearing prepared to answer questions, hoping they would say more than they would had they had time to think about it. MOO.

 

[lauriej]

Not the point, the law is black and white - no gray areas. He was not following, watching, or pursuing him to kill him, IMO. The way I understand it, the prosecution will have to prove his motive was to kill TM in order to show depravity (correct word?). JMO and I could be wrong - bring on the lawyers!

--that's not the way i read it , according to nejame's definition.


http://www.nejamelaw.com/homicide-lawyer-orlando-florida.htm

Elements of Murder / Homicide


Second Degree Murder occurs when a person intentionally commits an extremely dangerous act that demonstrates a depraved mind without regard to human life and someone else is killed by the result of that act. A person can be convicted of Second Degree Murder even if they did not specifically intend to kill anyone.

 

[suspicious1]

Whatever it is, I believe it is a piece of the pie which is holding the prosecution's case together. IMO the girlfriend's testimony will not only entail the intial contact between the two, but the leading up to that event as well. I know many on this thread have said it's is only about "the fight." I totally disagree. The leading up to the initial contact will be key. It shows intent on Zimmerman's part, i.e, he's going to be the cop and detain his subject. His state of mind, i.e. he can't control himself to wait for the cops. What else can't Zimmerman control himself about?

jmo

ITA.

I am one who believes that it is not about the "fight". I am more focused on what led up to the fight. I think that is key. That's why I do not care about GZ injuries...i really don't. JMO