Witness accounts

[suzihawk]

He is a civil rights attorney.
I would think his end goal is to further his cause whether it's wrong or right.

Much like a lot of civil rights activists have been shown to "fib" a little for personal gain.

JMO

Not unlike many other attorneys involved in high profile cases. IMO

 

[LambChop]

Right after?

I don't recall that at all.


I remember it coming "out" after the media/racial/protests frenzy.

Again, persuasion.

March 14
Nearly 400 people, including many influential local civil-rights leaders and pastors, pack the Allen Chapel AME Church in Sanford to call for Zimmerman's arrest. Meanwhile, witness Mary Cutcher tells local a television station that police took only a short statement from her after the shooting and had ignored her calls. "I know this was not self-defense," she says.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...n-timeline-20120326_1_shooting-sanford-police

 

[suzihawk]

It is more about being afraid for his career. The public would want his head if he prevented this trial from taking place, according to some.

and one or two criminals is nothing compared to having three or four civil rights activists calling in protestors from all across the country, in protest about YOUR ruling.

According to who? Do you have a legitimate link to such information?

 

[BiancaS]

I am more terrified of GZ and his supporters than I would ever be of Trayvon Martin or his family and friends. But, if I were a witness and I believed that my life would be jeopardized by testifying for the prosecution..Well, I would because Justice, Honesty and Integrity mean more to me. I want to die knowing that I lived a life of Integrity and Honesty. I want to die knowing that I was strong enough to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth..

Especially since the witnesses identities are being protected. No reason to hide the truth, IMO.

 

[Karmady]

I don't know what circles you run in but I haven't heard that. Could you provide a link where this is being discussed?

In all honesty, the same things could be said about most attorneys at one time or another, IMO. I'm sure they also have their eye on the "end goal" and there are more, than not, that are not constrained by truth or conscience when it comes to defending their clients.

JMO

No, I cannot provide you with a link to my personal conversations with those in my circle. So take it fwiw, as was intended.

We can agree to disagree wrt Crump's status amongst his peers. But note that he's not defending anyone in this case. His clients are the prospective plaintiffs.

 

[suzihawk]

No immunity and a plea bargain or conviction so that the civil suits can go forward with a far lower standard of proof? jmo

If the State loses at the SYG hearing, there will be no upside for Crump at all, also imo.

And I'd suggest that there's some professional/financial motivation just from the notoriety thrown in there, to boot. Between this case and the boot camp case, he would become quite the famous and wealthy civil rights "go to" guy, probably on a national level.

Might the same be said for O'Mara?

 

[jjenny]

March 14
Nearly 400 people, including many influential local civil-rights leaders and pastors, pack the Allen Chapel AME Church in Sanford to call for Zimmerman's arrest. Meanwhile, witness Mary Cutcher tells local a television station that police took only a short statement from her after the shooting and had ignored her calls. "I know this was not self-defense," she says.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...n-timeline-20120326_1_shooting-sanford-police

How does MC know "it was not self-defense?" What did she actually witness?

 

[persnickety]

Am I on the witness statements thread? I thought we had threads some place else where we were supposed to discuss things like racial issues, etc? I am not sure why Mr. Crump is being discussed in a thread about witness accounts? He wasn't a witness to the events that transpired that night so I don't understand the significance of discussing his actions or inactions.


OMO

 

[Dr.Fessel]

He does have an amazing ability to race-bait and inflame the general public, as well as the special interests. Imo, he is particularly good at it because he is not at all constrained by truth or conscience, and his end goal is the greatest motivator of all to many people. So, while I don't think he personally convinced the witnesses to change their stories, certainly the climate he has actively and intentionally created would do the trick. Heck, if people are talking about the Judge possibly punting due to fear of reprisal (and they are, at least in my circle), how can we expect more from a witness. jmo

I think it is far more likely this witness changed his story because facts would prove him wrong. I asked from the minute I heard his first story how he knew who was yelling when he could not identify the race of either person so how could he see lips moving. I laid stuff out in my yard 30 feet away in similar light that has been reported and could not tell the colors. I doubted his story from the start and I bet FDLE did too and did a night time re-enactment. I think FDLE knows those marks were not made from a head slamming on cement and this guy was claiming he saw his head being pounded into it. The story we have been told is George was at the T and Trayvon decked him and beat his head into the cement. If that is what he told the police they know something is wrong with the whole story since the body ended up 60 feet from the T. They had to look at this guys story close and prove he was not lying and a re-enactment would be one way to do that.

He probably watched the re-enactment or they explained why his story wasn't adding up and he changed it.

 

[katydid23]

Am I on the witness statements thread? I thought we had threads some place else where we were supposed to discuss things like racial issues, etc? I am not sure why Mr. Crump is being discussed in a thread about witness accounts? He wasn't a witness to the events that transpired that night so I don't understand the significance of discussing his actions or inactions.


OMO

I think it was because people were asking why some witnesses seemed to have changed their accounts. And that segued into pressures they may perceive, which MIGHT come from society and the public.

 

[LambChop]

No, I cannot provide you with a link to my personal conversations with those in my circle. So take it fwiw, as was intended.

We can agree to disagree wrt Crump's status amongst his peers. But note that he's not defending anyone in this case. His clients are the prospective plaintiffs.

I don't think MOM has decided whether or not he will use SYG, or just go straight to trial and claim self defense. That was my understanding. Many experts agree that looking at the evidence now, SYG would not apply. I think MOM would know what those chances are and why risk GZ's testimony if it gets turned down. So that might not even be an issue. jmo

 

[jjenny]

I've never heard about witness being shown a re-enactment to get them to change their story.

 

[m00c0w]

I think it is far more likely this witness changed his story because facts would prove him wrong. I asked from the minute I heard his first story how he knew who was yelling when he could not identify the race of either person so how could he see lips moving. I laid stuff out in my yard 30 feet away in similar light that has been reported and could not tell the colors. I doubted his story from the start and I bet FDLE did too and did a night time re-enactment. I think FDLE knows those marks were not made from a head slamming on cement and this guy was claiming he saw his head being pounded into it. The story we have been told is George was at the T and Trayvon decked him and beat his head into the cement. If that is what he told the police they know something is wrong with the whole story since the body ended up 60 feet from the T. They had to look at this guys story close and prove he was not lying and a re-enactment would be one way to do that.

He probably watched the re-enactment or they explained why his story wasn't adding up and he changed it.

What did he have to gain from lying about it? What would his motivation be to make up something like that? Especially with as many specific details as he put out there? It just doesn't make sense. It seems far more likely he decided to take a more nebulous stance because of pressure of some type.

 

[m00c0w]

I've never heard about witness being shown a re-enactment to get them to change their story.

It's a heavily specious assertion based on zero fact.

 

[LambChop]

How does MC know "it was not self-defense?" What did she actually witness?

I don't know. Maybe she could figure it out by the way the body was laying as we have. Maybe she talked with neighbors and found out just how many complaints there were about LE trying to coach their statements. We can't know unless we ask her. jmo

 

[m00c0w]

How does MC know "it was not self-defense?" What did she actually witness?

And I like how she came out after the PD said her story supported Zimmerman's and said it most certainly did not. I don't know how she can claim that when she doesn't even know Zimmerman's story, much less given the underwhelming amount of the entire event she saw.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I've never heard about witness being shown a re-enactment to get them to change their story.

I never said they would do it to make him change his story, they would do it to prove his story true.

 

[m00c0w]

I never said they would do it to make him change his story, they would do it to prove his story true.

Can you provide any evidence at all they did any such thing? A mention of it in the document dump? A news report? Anything other than "maybe they did this"? AFAIK the only re-enactment they did was during the day with Zimmerman there. No mention of witnesses (except Zimmerman) being present.

 

[LambChop]

What did he have to gain from lying about it? What would his motivation be to make up something like that? Especially with as many specific details as he put out there? It just doesn't make sense. It seems far more likely he decided to take a more nebulous stance because of pressure of some type.

Maybe he talked with GZ and was influenced by what GZ said to him. We do know there was no cement head banging where TM's body was found because his body was too far away from the sidewalk for that to have happened. So if this witness said he saw it, well, he knows know he didn't. That might have been a reason to sit down and rethink about what he saw compared to what GZ told him or what he overheard. jmo

 

[Dr.Fessel]

What did he have to gain from lying about it? What would his motivation be to make up something like that? Especially with as many specific details as he put out there? It just doesn't make sense. It seems far more likely he decided to take a more nebulous stance because of pressure of some type.

How about 15 minutes of fame like everyone else is accused of? Big shot with big bad story that explains why he never went out there? I don't know just guessing. IMO