17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #36

[Phoenixfla]

But I believe the message SA was trying to get through to GZ was that those statements were recorded. Those very statements, IMO, would have been to determine what charges the DA should have brought against GZ. The charges now we know are 2nd degree murder. So what inconsistencies led them to believe that. Once those statements are released through discovery we will be able to check them out ourselves. Sometimes when people are inconsistent in the statements because those statements are not based entirely on the truth people are not aware of the inconsistencies and it would be only natural to answer absolutely not. jmo

That could be, or it could be that what is percevied as inconsistencies is merely details that need more explaination.

 

[Karmady]

I think you're referring to this section of the transcript:

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.


The way I read it, the amount of statements was not framed as a question at this point. GZ is responding to the question"which officer?" first with "yes" (IMO, as in "I understand your question"), then with "sir" and then "I'm sorry all their names run together." He's not responding to the non-question about the number of statements. When he is actually questioned about the number of statements later, he says that he remembers giving three statements.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

That's the way I read it, too. It's a "bad" compound question, imo, and George was answering the first part and not focusing on the second. jmo

 

[LambChop]

I think you're referring to this section of the transcript:

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.


The way I read it, the amount of statements was not framed as a question at this point. GZ is responding to the question"which officer?" first with "yes" (IMO, as in "I understand your question"), then with "sir" and then "I'm sorry all their names run together." He's not responding to the non-question about the number of statements. When he is actually questioned about the number of statements later, he says that he remembers giving three statements.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Unless GZ has a comprehension problem the question was pretty clear. The last question asked of him before his answer was......."You made five statements I believe, total?.....GZ's immediate answer is....."Yes, sir, I'm sorry....." So he was answering both questions. The last question he heard it appears he answered and clarified by continuing that he did not know all the officers names. It appears he understood the question. jmo

 

[LambChop]

That could be, or it could be that what is percevied as inconsistencies is merely details that need more explaination.

That is why he has an attorney to CLEAR up those inconsistencies. MOM did not do that....."Let sleeping dogs lie" IMO

 

[beach]

Yep. That's about it. He gave a number of statements and the State maintains there were some inconsistencies in his statements. How many, we do not know for sure. The only one the investigator mentioned was TM circling the truck three times which is inconsistent with GZ's story of being attacked at the cut through. jmo

Sometimes witnesses get confused about what constitutes a "statement". He may have given 3 oral statements and 2 written statements. When they are asked a question like that when on the stand, I think they often just consider the times they were interviewed orally as statements. Those tend to stand out in their mind for obvious reasons. When actually, all are legally considered statements.

IOW, maybe it is just a misunderstanding on the part of the witness.


ETA: I admit I haven't been able to keep up with everything lately so not sure how many oral and written statements actually exist. Not claiming the scenario I propose is the truth of what happened. Just throwing it out here for consideration.

 

[Donjeta]

I am willing to give him a pass for the number of statements since I can't see what bearing it has on guilt or innocence. Maybe his idea of which conversations constituted a statement differs from the prosecutor's idea. It's more what he said than how many times he did imo. As it looks now he could have contradicted himself several times within a couple of sentences.

 

[vlpate]

Unless GZ has a comprehension problem the question was pretty clear. The last question asked of him before his answer was......."You made five statements I believe, total?.....GZ's immediate answer is....."Yes, sir, I'm sorry....." So he was answering both questions. The last question he heard it appears he answered and clarified by continuing that he did not know all the officers names. It appears he understood the question. jmo

It wasn't a question. Adding a question mark where there wasn't one is misleading. He didn't say, "Did you make five statements", or "you made five statements I believe, total, correct".

And frankly, so what if he did make five statements or twenty? O'Mara questioned the Investigator about any inconsistencies in what GZ told officers the night the incident happened, and the evidence and witness statements that night, and there were none.

The inconsistency of GZ's account as to how he received his head injuries, was addressed. The investigator conceded that GZ's head came in contact with something harder that his head. IMO - that would seem to be cement more than soft grass and wet ground.
JMO

 

[LambChop]

Sometimes witnesses get confused about what constitutes a "statement". He may have given 3 oral statements and 2 written statements. When they are asked a question like that when on the stand, I think they often just consider the times they were interviewed orally as statements. Those tend to stand out in their mind for obvious reasons. When actually, all are legally considered statements.

IOW, maybe it is just a misunderstanding on the part of the witness.


ETA: I admit I haven't been able to keep up with everything lately so not sure how many oral and written statements actually exist. Not claiming the scenario I propose is the truth of what happened. Just throwing it out here for consideration.

Would MOM have tried to clarify GZ's statement. Or is it possible MOM does not know how many statement GZ gave??? jmo

 

[LambChop]

It wasn't a question. Adding a question mark where there wasn't one is misleading. He didn't say, "Did you make five statements", or "you made five statements I believe, total, correct".

And frankly, so what if he did make five statements or twenty? O'Mara questioned the Investigator about any inconsistencies in what GZ told officers the night the incident happened, and the evidence and witness statements that night, and there were none.

The inconsistency of GZ's account as to how he received his head injuries, was addressed. The investigator conceded that GZ's head came in contact with something harder that his head. IMO - that would seem to be cement more than soft grass and wet ground.
JMO

GZ was on the stand testifying why wouldn't it be a question? It was asked by the SA. I believe the homocide detective who was on that night is one of the one's who interviewed GZ and he felt GZ was not telling the truth. jmo

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...orge-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674

 

[vlpate]

Yep. That's about it. He gave a number of statements and the State maintains there were some inconsistencies in his statements. How many, we do not know for sure. The only one the investigator mentioned was TM circling the truck three times which is inconsistent with GZ's story of being attacked at the cut through. jmo

Can you please tell me where this is? I've read the entire transcript a couple of times and cannot find it. Maybe it was during a commercial break and didn't make the transcript? TIA

 

[vlpate]

Would MOM have tried to clarify GZ's statement. Or is it possible MOM does not know how many statement GZ gave??? jmo

If I were M'OM I might be thinking it helped his case as far as the unfounded rumor perpetuated by Crump <Mod Snip>., that there was no investigation. JMO

 

[Phoenixfla]

I'm not talking about the inconsistencies which the investigator rightfully indentified as inconsistencies within the statements he gave. I'm talking about the fact that he just testified and agreed that he gave 5 statements and then later claimed he only gave 3 statements. That, in itself, is an inconsistent statement. On the stand he have proven he has some credibility problems. jmo

Let me ask this then. Why would he lie about the number of statements he gave? Lets say he actually gave 5, why would he lie and say he gave 3? What would that accomplish? IMO, IF was trying to mislead the court, it would not be over something as easily verifiable as how many statements he gave.

 

[who]

Can you please tell me where this is? I've read the entire transcript a couple of times and cannot find it. Maybe it was during a commercial break and didn't make the transcript? TIA

There was a notation of circling, but not three times.

It has not been transcribed anywhere, because this is a portion in the CNN transcription where they broke away to commercial. It was described as "circling" his car.

I transcribed it myself.

DE LA RIONDA: Did he, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: According to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin? Correct?

GILBREATH: He went after him,Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it true, based on the evidence, Mr. Zimmerman had two flashlights with him?
GILBREATH: Yes.
<snip /tactical flashlight description>

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after' - Mr. Martin, is that correct?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?

GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?

GILBREATH:Yes.

O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.

O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?

GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?

GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head

O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?

GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
​

From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com - Starts at about 1:46:39 (this portion)

 

[Phoenixfla]

That is why he has an attorney to CLEAR up those inconsistencies. MOM did not do that....."Let sleeping dogs lie" IMO

The Probable Cause Affidavit did not specifically list those inconsistencies, or else he may have. They were limited to the scope of the affidavit.

GZ may or may not be able to explain those inconsistencies at the trial. I would not say that a lack of challenging inconsistencies by MOM, which are not part of the affidavit, means that there is real merit in them.

 

[Karmady]

Would MOM have tried to clarify GZ's statement. Or is it possible MOM does not know how many statement GZ gave??? jmo

bbm~

My guess is that he feels the number of statements will speak for itself and that George's recollection of how many statements he gave is irrelevant when you're ultimately going to be looking at X number of statements. jmo

 

[gxm]

Unless GZ has a comprehension problem the question was pretty clear. The last question asked of him before his answer was......."You made five statements I believe, total?.....GZ's immediate answer is....."Yes, sir, I'm sorry....." So he was answering both questions. The last question he heard it appears he answered and clarified by continuing that he did not know all the officers names. It appears he understood the question. jmo

IMO, no; the question isn't clear. There isn't even a question mark in the transcript. GZ understood, and responded to, the first part of the question (the sentence with the question mark after it). And did not respond to the add-on sentence as, IMO, he was focusing on the "which officer" part.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[LambChop]

The Probable Cause Affidavit did not specifically list those inconsistencies, or else he may have. They were limited to the scope of the affidavit.

GZ may or may not be able to explain those inconsistencies at the trial. I would not say that a lack of challenging inconsistencies by MOM, which are not part of the affidavit, means that there is real merit in them.

I was just referring to how many statements GZ had given not necessarily that they were inconsistent. We know he gave an unrecorded statement to LE stating he shot TM. He also gave an unrecorded statement to the EMT that he kept calling for help. The narcotics officer took a statement which I'm assuming was recorded. The homocide detective took a statement which we can assume was recorded. He did a reenactment the next morning which would be another statement, recorded. And he admits to giving a statement on the evening of February 27th which IMO was recorded. So it does appear he gave more than 3 statements and at least 4 were recorded. Let me add, one would hope. jmo

 

[LambChop]

IMO, no; the question isn't clear. There isn't even a question mark in the transcript. GZ understood, and responded to, the first part of the question (the sentence with the question mark after it). And did not respond to the add-on sentence as, IMO, he was focusing on the "which officer" part.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

GZ was testify and answering questions presented to him by SA. Just because a typist transcribed the recorded material does not mean it was not a question. When you are on the stand testify you are answering questions from the SA. Of course it was a question. Unless you are in GZ's head you do not know what he was responding to other than "yes", to the question. "Yes" is an answer to a question. Yes is not an answer to "which officer". jmo

 

[LynnM]

bbm~

My guess is that he feels the number of statements will speak for itself and that George's recollection of how many statements he gave is irrelevant when you're ultimately going to be looking at X number of statements. jmo

I agree. There is no reason for GZ to lie about the number of statements since it is going to be made public. And I agree with Beach about possible confusion about what is a statement. Doing the re-enactment and telling his story again would be a statement but he might not think of it that way.

I think the significant point here is that he has given multiple statements and the prosecutor believes that there are meaningful inconsistencies.

 

[LambChop]

Can you please tell me where this is? I've read the entire transcript a couple of times and cannot find it. Maybe it was during a commercial break and didn't make the transcript? TIA

You know I read it a couple of times but it appears the post below your's has cleared up that mystery. Gilbreath said GZ's statement was the TM was circling his car. I thought 3 times was a little much. So it was just TM was circling which would lead you to believe it was more than once otherwise he would have just been walking by the car. jmo