Witness accounts

[whiteangora]

All of these witnesses changing their recollections is not looking very good for ol' George. The one constant seems to be witness #13 saying how casual GZ was about just killing Trayvon. Zimmerman's tone, the witness said,was "not like 'I can't believe I just shot someone!' it was more like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody…' like it was nothing." <snipped from article>
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...120522_1_witnesses-change-shooting-fdle-agent

 

[cityslick]

She does still say she saw someone running. But I don't think that can amount to much as far as proof of anything. If she saw someone running in a certain direction it could still mean that it was Trayvon running away but no way to ever be able to prove that in court.

I think the one that is the most significant though is John. His story seems to have fallen completely apart and it had pretty much been taken as solid proof of Trayvon beating on GZ and GZ yelling for help. First he said he could see who was calling for help, then he could see Trayvon hitting GZ MMA style, now he couldn't even see this MMA type fighting.

JMHO

He still hasn't changed the key part though, which is that TM was on top. Other witnesses (at least one other) collaborate 'John's' involved as they say they heard someone ask if the person on the ground was ok and then said he was going to call 911.

He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.

He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.

"The black guy was on top," he said.

 

[annalia]

He still hasn't changed the key part though, which is that TM was on top. Other witnesses (at least one other) collaborate 'John's' involved as they say they heard someone ask if the person on the ground was ok and then said he was going to call 911.

He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.

He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.

"The black guy was on top," he said.

The MMA style fighting and the calls for help have been backtracked, why would he have ever said he saw MMA style fighting, I think that renders everything he says pretty useless. Did he get any 'coaching' from LE in the beginning that maybe made him think it was a certain way, the kind that some other witnesses complained about?

But that's just MO of course

 

[AJ Noiter]

He still hasn't changed the key part though, which is that TM was on top. Other witnesses (at least one other) collaborate 'John's' involved as they say they heard someone ask if the person on the ground was ok and then said he was going to call 911.

He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.

He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.

"The black guy was on top," he said.

Or banging his head into the ground, for that matter. If anything his "new" story supports Mr. Zimmerman's even more in my opinion.

 

[cityslick]

The MMA style fighting and the calls for help have been backtracked, why would he have ever said he saw MMA style fighting, I think that renders everything he says pretty useless. Did he get any 'coaching' from LE in the beginning that maybe made him think it was a certain way, the kind that some other witnesses complained about?

But that's just MO of course

You mean the same way this witness changed her story once she talked to prosecutors?

"I don't know which one. &#8230; All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 2 1/2-minute recorded session.

"I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," she said.

I got to ask, what size was she referring to, the 2005 mug shot?

 

[AJ Noiter]

The MMA style fighting and the calls for help have been backtracked, why would he have ever said he saw MMA style fighting, I think that renders everything he says pretty useless. Did he get any 'coaching' from LE in the beginning that maybe made him think it was a certain way, the kind that some other witnesses complained about?

But that's just MO of course

You know, I had this same question in reverse. Was he INTERROGATED as opposed to questioned about what he saw? This could cause people to doubt what they saw - and I believe this is what happened here. "John" became unsure of exactly what he saw, but he's still adamant that Mr. Martin was on top and that Mr. Zimmerman was on bottom.

 

[annalia]

You mean the same way this witness changed her story once she talked to prosecutors?

"I don't know which one. &#8230; All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 2 1/2-minute recorded session.

"I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," she said.

I got to ask, what size was she referring to, the 2005 mug shot?

My bolding

Sigh

This is exactly one of the reasons I had stopped posting, nothing can be posted without it becoming a game of back and forth one upmanship. I was talking about John, his original statement was always said to be the most powerful, that's what I was discussing.

NVM I'll take it all back and say that John is the most credible witness they have, nothing he backtracked means anything. Better?

 

[magnolia]

You know, I had this same question in reverse. Was he INTERROGATED as opposed to questioned about what he saw? This could cause people to doubt what they saw - and I believe this is what happened here. "John" became unsure of exactly what he saw, but he's still adamant that Mr. Martin was on top and that Mr. Zimmerman was on bottom.

I also believe this is what happened to witness #6. At least, he remains adamant that Martin was on top/Zimmerman on bottom.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I also believe this is what happened to witness #6. At least, he remains adamant that Martin was on top/Zimmerman on bottom.

Just a guess but I have a feeling the witness saw the police doing a reenactment in the dark while one was standing by his window and not able to see anything. imo

 

[2goldfish]

Sounds like nobody really saw anything in detail and that includes the lady who said she saw two people running.

That one is actually significant because it could be assumed that would be potential evidence that GZ was chasing TM.

:sigh: this is why I am waiting on the forensics really, witness testimony is unreliable on the best of days, let alone at night in the rain. blah.

eta no smilies *WAIL*

 

[LambChop]

:sigh: this is why I am waiting on the forensics really, witness testimony is unreliable on the best of days, let alone at night in the rain. blah.

eta no smilies *WAIL*

I think the original problem was when witnesses complained that LE was trying to change their statements by making suggestions to them that "maybe they didn't see that", or "are you sure it wasn't the other way around". They had GZ's statement and I think they were trying to make it fit his statement. And it may not have been because they were trying to vindicate GZ but because what they thought they were looking at is someone who had just tried to prevent a crime and had to shoot their attacker. When they had a clearer picture of who TM was and that he did live there they may have looked at GZ's statements versus the witnesses in greater detail. Keeping in mind this was not their only case. But then things are not always as they appear. jmo

 

[RANCH]

I think the original problem was when witnesses complained that LE was trying to change their statements by making suggestions to them that "maybe they didn't see that", or "are you sure it wasn't the other way around". They had GZ's statement and I think they were trying to make it fit his statement. And it may not have been because they were trying to vindicate GZ but because what they thought they were looking at is someone who had just tried to prevent a crime and had to shoot their attacker. When they had a clearer picture of who TM was and that he did live there they may have looked at GZ's statements versus the witnesses in greater detail. Keeping in mind this was not their only case. But then things are not always as they appear. jmo

If any member of LE tried to sway a witness's statement one way or another, they are guilty of obstruction of justice or at the minimum gross ineptitude. If it's shown that this in fact happened, even by a single officer, I believe it will seriously harm the prosecutions case. JMO.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

They had a cop going around showing a picture of George with blood on him which would lead a person into saying oh I saw someone getting hit.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I think the original problem was when witnesses complained that LE was trying to change their statements by making suggestions to them that "maybe they didn't see that", or "are you sure it wasn't the other way around". They had GZ's statement and I think they were trying to make it fit his statement. And it may not have been because they were trying to vindicate GZ but because what they thought they were looking at is someone who had just tried to prevent a crime and had to shoot their attacker. When they had a clearer picture of who TM was and that he did live there they may have looked at GZ's statements versus the witnesses in greater detail. Keeping in mind this was not their only case. But then things are not always as they appear. jmo

Who were they making these statements to? If it were the investigators it could be considered to be clarifying. Take this made up statement for example: "I saw a black male on top of a white female, he was punching her and he was screaming for help." Is that logical? If the officer asks "Don't you mean she was yelling for help?" is he trying to sway her or clarify?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Who were they making these statements to? If it were the investigators it could be considered to be clarifying. Take this made up statement for example: "I saw a black male on top of a white female, he was punching her and he was screaming for help." Is that logical? If the officer asks "Don't you mean she was yelling for help?" is he trying to sway her or clarify?

A better example would be say a kid sees a guy laying on the ground, and before he records the statement he goes over with the kid what he saw. The kid is asked what the guy was wearing and he says he doesn't know it was dark and the investigator says well would you say his shirt was white, red (add a little head nod here) or black. The kid says red and they record the statement. all just an example imo

 

[m00c0w]

Just a guess but I have a feeling the witness saw the police doing a reenactment in the dark while one was standing by his window and not able to see anything. imo

Based on what?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Based on what?

They would probably do a reenactment at dark just to make sure the people could really see what they said they saw. It would be prudent.

 

[m00c0w]

They would probably do a reenactment at dark just to make sure the people could really see what they said they saw. It would be prudent.

So you really have nothing factual to base this... theory on?

 

[AJ Noiter]

A better example would be say a kid sees a guy laying on the ground, and before he records the statement he goes over with the kid what he saw. The kid is asked what the guy was wearing and he says he doesn't know it was dark and the investigator says well would you say his shirt was white, red (add a little head nod here) or black. The kid says red and they record the statement. all just an example imo

This certainly explains why the individual you speak of in your example was telling TELEVISION CAMERAS that it was red. Was the officer standing behind the camera nodding his head there too?

 

[Just K]

She does still say she saw someone running. But I don't think that can amount to much as far as proof of anything. If she saw someone running in a certain direction it could still mean that it was Trayvon running away but no way to ever be able to prove that in court.

I think the one that is the most significant though is John. His story seems to have fallen completely apart and it had pretty much been taken as solid proof of Trayvon beating on GZ and GZ yelling for help. First he said he could see who was calling for help, then he could see Trayvon hitting GZ MMA style, now he couldn't even see this MMA type fighting.

JMHO

And, if you listen to the 911 call, you can hear "Jeremy" talking in the background. You can hear his voice at different volumes. The wife's story has changed somewhat from the 911 call.

It appears that her husband/So is "John"/Jeremy and her re-telling of the events and his keep evolving...for some reason...