GZ Case - Defense Perspective

[AngelWings444]

Ah, it now occurs to me that he/she may have thought that I was saying that specifically to him/her. That's not the case, I was just making the statement in general and do apologize if it was conceived to be pointed at someone.

I did not believe it was directed at me. A "general" statement, <modsnip>. That was my opinion.

Can we move on before we all get tossed?

 

[LambChop]

Ah, I had to follow this back to see what you meant, lol. What Angel was saying is that we'll know when the document dump happens because the media will announce it right away.

Trust me, when it happens we will tear it UP! It's like Christmas for sleuthers!

LOL. I know. You can almost here the "thumping" on their keyboards. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[beach]

:lurk:


Moving along now... :whistle:


Topic: Defense Perspective.

 

[LambChop]

:lurk:


Moving along now... :whistle:


Topic: Defense Perspective.

I see you peeking.....sorry, Beach. lol

 

[vlpate]

I stated as much in my vote. I don't see how the state can't have more, but from my current understanding of everything official that I have seen, I have to support Mr. Zimmerman. This may change in the future.

It seemed to me that the investigator, Gilbreath, was very defensive when being questioned, uncomfortable even. I seriously believe they've shown all their cards. Aside from the g/f's phone call, which seems to be hearsay, at best, what else could they have to shock and awe us?

 

[suzihawk]

It seemed to me that the investigator, Gilbreath, was very defensive when being questioned, uncomfortable even. I seriously believe they've shown all their cards. Aside from the g/f's phone call, which seems to be hearsay, at best, what else could they have to shock and awe us?

He wasn't prepared for the impromptu mini-trial that was sprung on him by O'Mara at the last moment. I think they have much more and will do just fine at trial. We'll see...

JMO

 

[LambChop]

It seemed to me that the investigator, Gilbreath, was very defensive when being questioned, uncomfortable even. I seriously believe they've shown all their cards. Aside from the g/f's phone call, which seems to be hearsay, at best, what else could they have to shock and awe us?

I think the investigator was uncomfortable with MOM because he was unprepared to testify and he did choose his words carefully as if he did not want to trip himself up. GF's call is admissible I believe because TM is dead and cannot testify about the call himself. Why else would they be considering her testimony for the Grand Jury? But I also believe the jury would get special instructions about her testimony. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

I think the investigator was uncomfortable with MOM because he was unprepared to testify and he did choose his words carefully as if he did not want to trip himself up. GF's call is admissible I believe because TM is dead and cannot testify about the call himself. Why else would they be considering her testimony for the Grand Jury? But I also believe the jury would get special instructions about her testimony. jmo

I think we'd have to get a lawyer in here to say for sure, but it is my understanding that she can testify to Mr. Martin's words but not the events. For example, I don't believe she'd be allowed to say "the stranger showed up again" because she would not be quoting Mr. Martin. Being an "ear witness" she can't state whether the "stranger showed up" or Mr. Martin went up to the stranger.

Again, my understanding and I'm probably wrong.

 

[Karmady]

I think we'd have to get a lawyer in here to say for sure, but it is my understanding that she can testify to Mr. Martin's words but not the events. For example, I don't believe she'd be allowed to say "the stranger showed up again" because she would not be quoting Mr. Martin. Being an "ear witness" she can't state whether the "stranger showed up" or Mr. Martin went up to the stranger.

Again, my understanding and I'm probably wrong.

The legal definition of hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay

So, you are correct, imo. The girl on the phone can say what she heard, but not for the purpose of proving that what she heard was reality. For example, if she says Trayvon told me he wasn't going to run, but would walk fast. She can say what she heard, if it is otherwise relevant and admissible, but it won't be admitted for the purpose of proving that Trayvon walked fast or did not run. There would have to be some other valid reason for the court or the jury to hear it.

Gitana, who is a verified lawyer, was here a while back and was of the opinion that there also are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule which may apply, depending on what testimony is offered and the purpose for which it is offered. The case link, below, is a relatively recent case decided under very similar circumstances. It's from another jurisdiction, though, so some of the exceptions may not apply under Fla. law. You can still get a pretty good grasp on the general issue from reading it, though, if you're so inclined. jmo

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ar-court-of-appeals/1131127.html

 

[Elley Mae]

It seemed to me that the investigator, Gilbreath, was very defensive when being questioned, uncomfortable even. I seriously believe they've shown all their cards. Aside from the g/f's phone call, which seems to be hearsay, at best, what else could they have to shock and awe us?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html

I don't thing they have much more then what we know, jmo I think because GZ was processed thought LE as a self-defense they didn't "collect" any evidence. jmo

snipped by me
“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

 

[LambChop]

I think we'd have to get a lawyer in here to say for sure, but it is my understanding that she can testify to Mr. Martin's words but not the events. For example, I don't believe she'd be allowed to say "the stranger showed up again" because she would not be quoting Mr. Martin. Being an "ear witness" she can't state whether the "stranger showed up" or Mr. Martin went up to the stranger.

Again, my understanding and I'm probably wrong.

No. You're right she can testify to what she heard not who was speaking. How would she know? She heard TM ask why are you following me and a male voice say, "What are you doing here?" jmo

 

[LambChop]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html

I don't thing they have much more then what we know, jmo I think because GZ was processed thought LE as a self-defense they didn't "collect" any evidence. jmo

snipped by me
“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

What do we know??? We do not have the ME report. We do not have GZ's many statements. We do not have the video of the reenactment. There is a lot we do not have. We certainly do not have enough to see why the DA charged him with 2nd degree murder. jmo

 

[vlpate]

I think the investigator was uncomfortable with MOM because he was unprepared to testify and he did choose his words carefully as if he did not want to trip himself up. GF's call is admissible I believe because TM is dead and cannot testify about the call himself. Why else would they be considering her testimony for the Grand Jury? But I also believe the jury would get special instructions about her testimony. jmo

I agree he was uncomfortable, but the questions weren't hard, IMO. They seemed pretty straightforward. The truth is the truth and it doesn't change.

The only time I heard they were considering her testimony was from Hostin on CNN, via Crump. The Grand Jury does not announce who they will call. I think it was just more spin to make her seem more credible. JMO

 

[vlpate]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html

I don't thing they have much more then what we know, jmo I think because GZ was processed thought LE as a self-defense they didn't "collect" any evidence. jmo

snipped by me
“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

BEM: I disagree, I think they collected what evidence there was to collect, which wasn't much. The gun, the clothes, pictures, eyewitness statements, 911 calls, (hopefully) DNA. I also hope they paid close attention to shoe prints along the area the prosecution says their witness saw shadows and someone running. It seems this witness may have come late, so who knows.

The prosecution was not looking for evidence of anything but GZ guilt, so I think the defense investigation will be much different than what we've seen thus far. JMO

 

[tehcloser]

I agree he was uncomfortable, but the questions weren't hard, IMO. They seemed pretty straightforward. The truth is the truth and it doesn't change.

The only time I heard they were considering her testimony was from Hostin on CNN, via Crump. The Grand Jury does not announce who they will call. I think it was just more spin to make her seem more credible. JMO

bbm

ITA....And speaking overall, we'll see if it changed when we get a doc dump. IMO we are going to see some changes in some statements...hence the charges.

 

[vlpate]

What do we know??? We do not have the ME report. We do not have GZ's many statements. We do not have the video of the reenactment. There is a lot we do not have. We certainly do not have enough to see why the DA charged him with 2nd degree murder. jmo

Yes, but SPD had all those things when they said this on 3/12: "“In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense,” Lee said. “Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.”

The ONLY thing they didn't have when this announcement was made, because no one knew about it, was the statement from the g/f, that's it. They had the video of the reenactment and they had the autopsy, and gun forensics. IMO, the murder 2 charges stems from that phone call bringing in the words of TM via her, and reaching. JMO

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/12/2690445/sanford-chief-no-charges-yet-in.html#storylink=cpy

 

[ladonna]

I'm unsure where I could ask this queston, but didn't GZ waive his appearance at tomorrow's court appearance?

 

[Phoenixfla]

What do we know??? We do not have the ME report. We do not have GZ's many statements. We do not have the video of the reenactment. There is a lot we do not have. We certainly do not have enough to see why the DA charged him with 2nd degree murder. jmo

I would think that the affidavit that provides the probable cause for charging him should have enough in it to justify the charges.

 

[LambChop]

BEM: I disagree, I think they collected what evidence there was to collect, which wasn't much. The gun, the clothes, pictures, eyewitness statements, 911 calls, (hopefully) DNA. I also hope they paid close attention to shoe prints along the area the prosecution says their witness saw shadows and someone running. It seems this witness may have come late, so who knows.

The prosecution was not looking for evidence of anything but GZ guilt, so I think the defense investigation will be much different than what we've seen thus far. JMO

It was a homocide and the prosecution was looking for evidence. What the evidence and further investigation showed them was whether or not GZ should be charged and what to charge him with. I'm surprised it was not just manslaughter so what do they have????? jmo

 

[suzihawk]

BEM: I disagree, I think they collected what evidence there was to collect, which wasn't much. The gun, the clothes, pictures, eyewitness statements, 911 calls, (hopefully) DNA. I also hope they paid close attention to shoe prints along the area the prosecution says their witness saw shadows and someone running. It seems this witness may have come late, so who knows.

The prosecution was not looking for evidence of anything but GZ guilt, so I think the defense investigation will be much different than what we've seen thus far. JMO

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...gation-killing/story?id=15949879#.T6dRxcWkAa8

ABC News has learned police seemed to accept Zimmerman's account at face value that night and that he was not tested for drugs or alcohol on the night of the shooting, even though it is standard procedure in most homicide investigations.

-------

I wonder what else they neglected to do since they took GZ's story at face value?