Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Hey curi0us, did you see how GZ's wife has come out and said he is not a violent man? But a GF about 5 (10?) years ago got a restraining order against him. Which one of those do you think proves GZ is innocent or guilty?

 

[johnny karate]

See the part in bold? It was not meant to suggest they have the same meaning, and somewhat implicitly acknowledged that they don't have the same meaning. In fact, that was the entire purpose of the acknowledgement .

See above.

Your conclusion is nonsensical because it wrongly assumes that if the sentence uses one word, and I then acknowledge it would have been more precise to use a different word, that both sentences cannot be applicable. For instance, I could have also said "the use of the word confronted in this context is ambiguous and loaded". See how that works?

As an aside, even though it's not what happened here, statements can in fact often be interpreted two different ways due to the sometimes imprecise nature of language as well as the imprecise use of it. Therefore your conclusion is nonsensical on all fronts, or what I like to refer to as "Johnny Karate Nonsensical".

I was quite certain you'd toss out a bunch of sophistry, which is why I offered this simple and decisive query:

When you said this:

"Confront" is a loaded word.

By "loaded", did you mean:

a) charged with emotional or associative significance that hinders rational or unprejudiced consideration of the terms involved in a discourse.

or

b) open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations

It's very straightforward, and seems to offer you a slam dunk opportunity to prove your intellectual superiority. And yet strangely, you completely ignored it. Gee.. I wonder why?

As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same. I'm sitting here flogging myself for giving into temptation and looking at your last few posts. Back to sticking with ignore.

Oh gosh, that's such a shame. Now I'll never receive that valuable lesson in linguistics you surely would have offered if only you had answered one simple question.

 

[crimresearch]

What profession is it that you claim to have expertise in, again? I'm sorry, but I don't see how your purported "professional opinion" tracks here without knowing what your purported "profession" is.

I am a NREMT-P to be exact. (Nationally Recognized EMT-Paramedic )

What is 'purported' about that?

 

[Cylinder]

Regarding Zimmerman's injuries, consider the following bit of testimony - the UNIDENTIFIED MALE in this case is Deputy Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true?

GILBREATH: Yes.

Det. Gilbreath's testimony on redirect - minutes later:

O'MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don't they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O'MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O'MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn't consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.

So Glibreath is seemingly claiming in one breath that the injuries were inconsistent with Zimmerman's account of having his head beat into concrete, yet very clearly states on redirect that the injuries were consistent with the same. A bit puzzling....

The relationship to the court between a prosecutor is not a level playing field. The state is firmly tethered to the truth. Not only are they not allowed by canon to knowingly mislead the court though testimony or theories of crime, they are also bound as an affirmative obligation to actively seek out exculpatory evidence and to investigate resonable alternate theories of the crime. That's what got Nifong's jimmy in a jamb. When confronted with the actual results of Mangum's rape kit (7 distict semen donors between vaginal, anal and underwear specimins - yuck!) Nifong claimed he was only informed that the defendants' DNA was not found. The bar correctly asserted Nifong's affirmative responsibility to seek out and disclose exculpatory evidence and complete results of scientific tests. Of course, a defense is allowed any relevant defense available - even defenses they know to be false. Outside of sworn statements, they have no real responsibility to the truth.

Let's look at O'Mara questioning Glibreath:

O'MARA: Ok. Have you ever had your nose broken?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?

GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that.

O'MARA: Have you asked him for them?

GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.

O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them?

GILBREATH: Sure.

O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. It's a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven't had them yet, I don't want to cross you on them.

The state had the affirmative reponsibility to at least search for more authoratative evidence on the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, which they apparently did not perform. We also have Gilbreath changing his testimony about the consistency of these injuries.

Now look at the testimony Gilbreath gave to the prosecutor again:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true?

GILBREATH: Yes.

You could say that Gilbreath is making that claim using his experience as a detective or whatever, but he's in no position to testify as to the actual exent of the injuries - he has no expertise in that area. We now know that ABC released the newly publicised photo of Zimmerman's injuries to the police, plus the reponding detective's deposition describing the injuries and that of the medic that responded.

O'Mara will hammer this at trial. The detectives had possibly exculpatory expert evidence available that they did not seek out, instead relying on seemingly non-exculpatory and certainly non-expert testimony becuase it was what they wanted to hear.

The initial investigator is going to have to explain why they cut Zimmerman loose. If his injuries were completely inconsistent with his claims, they should have kept him. His judgement will have to be challenged by both sides.

The medic will have to testify that he advised Zimmerman to seek medical attention because that's protocol for a head wound. An EMT/paramedic is in no position to diagnose or indicate the absence of concussive injury.

So we're left with photo analysis after the fact vs. the results of Zimmerman's medical examination.

 

[Cylinder]

Hey curi0us, did you see how GZ's wife has come out and said he is not a violent man? But a GF about 5 (10?) years ago got a restraining order against him. Which one of those do you think proves GZ is innocent or guilty?

That order was mutual, ex parte and pro forma. The judge even stated that in the bond hearing.

 

[johnny karate]

That's a little confusing because you actually used the word "alternative" in your question I was replying to.

I think your confusion might lie in the fact that you're ignoring my first and primary question, and now pretending I didn't ask it.

I'm not inclined to start going into Bayesian statistics over the bandage issue.

Yes, because that's exactly what I asked you to do.

But I do find it interesting you have been more than willing to discuss this topic right up to the point that I asked that question.

The back of his head was bloody, later it was bandaged. Some specifics are uncertain...

Like why a medical professional wouldn't give a supposedly serious scalp laceration a bandage. Oh, wait... that's right. It was Celox.

... but there is no great mystery there.

Right. Because I'm sure the consensus among EMTs and other medical professionals is the treatment for a serious scalp laceration = no bandages. Because of Celox. No mystery there at it all.

That's true, but people still use bandages on wounds that have stopped bleeding for a variety of reasons. People get stitches on wounds that have stopped bleeding as well.

And since Zimmerman had neither by the time he got to the police station, what does that leave us with? Oh yeah, Celox. I keep forgetting.

Can I use Crump's false statements to prove GZ is innocent and impeach the Martins?

Oh, I'm sure you already have. I mean, did you see those pictures of Trayvon they released to the press? OUTRAGE

But here's the thing, neither Crump nor anyone he represents was there on that fateful night, so I'm not sure why you would listen to what they have to say about it in the first place.

Zimmerman was there. As a matter of fact, at this point in time he's the only one who can tell us what happened. And it just so happens, his freedom depends on his version being true. So I think it's reasonable to hold what he and his advocates say about the events of that night to a higher standard, at least on a strictly factual basis.

I think I am stuck in a loop with you on this point but I will try again with a new approach.

At what point would you honestly feel like you were receiving a nasty beating?

At the point that I had injuries suggestive of a nasty beating. I hold Zimmerman to that same standard.

And by the way, before we get bogged down with what a "nasty beating" entails, keep in mind that that is merely my concise description of Zimmerman's father's rather detailed account. I've linked to it a few times upthread. Feel free to read it through and see how well you think it corresponds to Zimmerman's "no bandage required" injuries.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Great post.

So we're left with photo analysis after the fact vs. the results of Zimmerman's medical examination.

Just out of curiosity, why did you use the word "versus"? That seems to suggest they will be in conflict, whereas I'd think they'll simply compliment each other?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

That order was mutual, ex parte and pro forma. The judge even stated that in the bond hearing.

I was being silly, it was a takeoff on Johnny Karate who seems to think that "the heart of GZ's credibility" hinges on whether his first lawyer accurately described his wounds on a TV interview. At other times his credibility would appear to hinge on something his father or family said.

 

[Cylinder]

Great post.

Just out of curiosity, why did you use the word "versus"? That seems to suggest they will be in conflict, whereas I'd think they'll simply compliment each other?

From the standpoint of the prosecutor. They have testified that the injuries are inconsistent with Zimmerman's narrative.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

From the standpoint of the prosecutor. They have testified that the injuries are inconsistent with Zimmerman's narrative.

Got it, thanks.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Does anyone here in law enforcement or the legal profession want to meander a guess as to how many official documents there will be from when they first decided not to prosecute GZ explaining that reasoning? For instance, would someone have issued a thorough document detailing the all of the evidence and explaining why they decided not to prosecute? And will Mara have access to that and be able to throw it back at them?

Or do they typically not put that type of stuff in writing other than as a brief "have decided not to prosecute at this time based on the evidence", precisely so it can't be used against them if they change their mind?

 

[johnny karate]

Regarding Zimmerman's injuries, consider the following bit of testimony - the UNIDENTIFIED MALE in this case is Deputy Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda:



Det. Gilbreath's testimony on redirect - minutes later:



So Glibreath is seemingly claiming in one breath that the injuries were inconsistent with Zimmerman's account of having his head beat into concrete, yet very clearly states on redirect that the injuries were consistent with the same. A bit puzzling....

The relationship to the court between a prosecutor is not a level playing field. The state is firmly tethered to the truth. Not only are they not allowed by canon to knowingly mislead the court though testimony or theories of crime, they are also bound as an affirmative obligation to actively seek out exculpatory evidence and to investigate resonable alternate theories of the crime. That's what got Nifong's jimmy in a jamb. When confronted with the actual results of Mangum's rape kit (7 distict semen donors between vaginal, anal and underwear specimins - yuck!) Nifong claimed he was only informed that the defendants' DNA was not found. The bar correctly asserted Nifong's affirmative responsibility to seek out and disclose exculpatory evidence and complete results of scientific tests. Of course, a defense is allowed any relevant defense available - even defenses they know to be false. Outside of sworn statements, they have no real responsibility to the truth.

Let's look at O'Mara questioning Glibreath:



The state had the affirmative reponsibility to at least search for more authoratative evidence on the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, which they apparently did not perform. We also have Gilbreath changing his testimony about the consistency of these injuries.

Now look at the testimony Gilbreath gave to the prosecutor again:



You could say that Gilbreath is making that claim using his experience as a detective or whatever, but he's in no position to testify as to the actual exent of the injuries - he has no expertise in that area. We now know that ABC released the newly publicised photo of Zimmerman's injuries to the police, plus the reponding detective's deposition describing the injuries and that of the medic that responded.

O'Mara will hammer this at trial. The detectives had possibly exculpatory expert evidence available that they did not seek out, instead relying on seemingly non-exculpatory and certainly non-expert testimony becuase it was what they wanted to hear.

The initial investigator is going to have to explain why they cut Zimmerman loose. If his injuries were completely inconsistent with his claims, they should have kept him. His judgement will have to be challenged by both sides.

The medic will have to testify that he advised Zimmerman to seek medical attention because that's protocol for a head wound. An EMT/paramedic is in no position to diagnose or indicate the absence of concussive injury.

So we're left with photo analysis after the fact vs. the results of Zimmerman's medical examination.

You provided some good information and insight, but I offer two counterpoints:

A) This wasn't the trial. It was a bond hearing. How much evidence is the prosecution required to have and/or make known at this point?

B) I disagree that Gilbreath was being contradictory regarding the head wounds. In the first part he was asked if the injuries were consistent with "bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands". He said "no". In the second, he was asked - or rather stated - that they were consistent with "a harder object striking the back of his head". Two different scenarios, with the former being much more egregious. Which I believe is the point.

 

[This is The End]

Sorry, you are correct. I was thinking of the fact that we don't know if GZ followed him after that, that is, I believe GZ claims he was coming back to his vehicle.

Edit:actually rereading what I wrote I'm not sure I was incorrect. The fact is when people say that "The police operator ordered GZ not to pursue", it does in fact imply that GZ continued to pursue after being told not to, whereas I believe that GZ in fact claims he did not.

Ah OK, just make sure next time you add "continued to" in front of pursue. That we don't know.

 

[This is The End]

All pursuing is following. All following is not pursuing.

I'm sorry but that is only true of one of the definitions of pursue. According to my Websters, 3 more definitions do not imply "in order to overtake, capture".

Most of them are only "follow" or "chase".

 

[Cylinder]

INAL and INALEO....

Does anyone here in law enforcement or the legal profession want to meander a guess as to how many official documents there will be from when they first decided not to prosecute GZ explaining that reasoning? For instance, would someone have issued a thorough document detailing the all of the evidence and explaining why they decided not to prosecute?

No idea how many. They will have at minimum crime scene notes, the interview videos, and apparently a memo to the State Attorney.

And will Mara have access to that and be able to throw it back at them?

He will have everything. What's the original investigator gonna say, He was guilty as hell, but we cut him loose because it was a black kid he klilled? The original investigators are going to get killed by both sides.

Or do they typically not put that type of stuff in writing other than as a brief "have decided not to prosecute at this time based on the evidence", precisely so it can't be used against them if they change their mind?

They try to Nifong O'Mara, they will probably regret it. The original detectives will have some 'splainin to do either way.

So, Mr. Original Detective, you knew that Zimmerman was lying but you released him? Why would you do that?

The only way out that I can see is to blame it on the State Attorney.

 

[johnny karate]

I was being silly, it was a takeoff on Johnny Karate who seems to think that "the heart of GZ's credibility" hinges on whether his first lawyer accurately described his wounds on a TV interview. At other times his credibility would appear to hinge on something his father or family said.

Weird that you would put quotes around something I never actually said. Maybe this is the post to which you are referring:

The importance of the bandages goes right to heart of Zimmerman's claims about the severity of his injuries.

Perhaps my point was too ambiguous? Wait... I mean loaded. Or no, ambiguous. I can never keep those two words straight.

Does anyone here in law enforcement or the legal profession want to meander a guess as to how many official documents there will be from when they first decided not to prosecute GZ explaining that reasoning?

Yes, this is an excellent question. Can anyone meander it? I was meandering this with some friends of mine recently and what we ultimately meandered was that none of us had the expertise to properly meander it. So it would be great if a legal professional could meander it instead.

 

[Cylinder]

A) This wasn't the trial. It was a bond hearing. How much evidence is the prosecution required to have and/or make known at this point?

Just what's in the probable cause affidavit. That's the only things in evidence at this point.

 

[Rare Truth]

O'MARA: Ok. Have you ever had your nose broken?


GILBREATH: No. 


O'MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken. 


GILBREATH: No.


O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?


GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that. 


O'MARA: Have you asked him for them? 


GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.
O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them?


GILBREATH: Sure. 


O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. It's a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven't had them yet, I don't want to cross you on them.


Any Internet doctors still want to claim GZ didn't really have a broken nose ??

Maybe O'mara is bluffing ... since we haven't actually seen then medical records he is willing to give to the state. Anyone believe that ?

Wow, I bet those same medical records probably document the "scratches" to the back of his head.

I have a question about this. If the EMT report states he was checked for evidence of a broken nose (I'm not sure how they relay information in the EMS report, so help here is useful if I stray with an incorrect analysis) - but if they did check, and it was returned as negative, would that information be sufficient for the SA to be satisfied he indeed had no broken nose?

I am speaking only about the nose portion of his injuries here now.

I am riding a little off what Cylinder said here (and thank you Cylinder for a very informative run down of that):

The relationship to the court between a prosecutor is not a level playing field. The state is firmly tethered to the truth. Not only are they not allowed by canon to knowingly mislead the court though testimony or theories of crime, they are also bound as an affirmative obligation to actively seek out exculpatory evidence and to investigate resonable alternate theories of the crime.

Of course, a defense is allowed any relevant defense available - even defenses they know to be false. Outside of sworn statements, they have no real responsibility to the truth.
...
The state had the affirmative reponsibility to at least search for more authoratative evidence on the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, which they apparently did not perform. We also have Gilbreath changing his testimony about the consistency of these injuries.

O'Mara will hammer this at trial. The detectives had possibly exculpatory expert evidence available that they did not seek out, instead relying on seemingly non-exculpatory and certainly non-expert testimony becuase it was what they wanted to hear.

What I want to know is - in regards to how cleverly that portion by the defense L8Elvis presented (yes, it was very clever) would the state have the obligation to "ask for them" if the EMT records showed adequate evidence? In addition, he no doubt viewed the video of Zimmerman's questioning that night at the police station, notes by detectives, etc...

Again:





GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that. 


O'MARA: Have you asked him for them? 


GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.

O'Mara then tells him he will provide them to the state. Wouldn't these records (likely from after the incident, by a doctor the next day (?)) - Wouldn't the state already have this, as part of the original case handed to them? Would there be a reason that information would *not* be there?

It's just something that's bugging me about the way that exchange was handled, and the off hand way Gilbreath seems to dismiss the nose injury.

Sorry so long, and thanks in advance, to anyone who can help me with this.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You provided some good information and insight, but I offer two counterpoints:

A) This wasn't the trial. It was a bond hearing. How much evidence is the prosecution required to have and/or make known at this point?

None. Rather, only as much as they care to in an attempt to deny the bond.

I believe it's telling that they wanted to deny bond, but essentially presented no evidence. If they had positively identified the voice, if forensics had clearly contradicted GZ story, etc, I think they could have easily presented evidence of GZ clearly lying and gotten the bond denied.

I have a hard time believing they have a 'smoking gun' piece of evidence they are sitting on.

B) I disagree that Gilbreath was being contradictory regarding the head wounds. In the first part he was asked if the injuries were consistent with "bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands". He said "no". In the second, he was asked - or rather stated - that they were consistent with "a harder object striking the back of his head". Two different scenarios, with the former being much more egregious. Which I believe is the point.

I got the impression that perhaps the issue is that the investigators might not believe that the fight started on the cement (sidewalk) and then moved onto the grass. I believe that guess is consistent with the testimony from the bond hearing, but it is just a complete guess.

Non-skepitcally speaking, since we have

• indications that shooting evidence agrees with GZ story
• no evidence GZ wasn't returning to his truck, or that he swung first
• no voice analysis (from the FBI, even ) that identifies who is screaming
• indications that the GF story might be a sham

I would very tentatively conclude the state is going to make it's case on what they believe to be inconsistencies between GZ story of the fight and his injures. Perhaps based on the location of the sidewalk and the bodies. If something along those lines turns out to be close to the truth, I don't think they will get a conviction.

 

[Rare Truth]

I would like to add this to the record. It has not been transcribed anywhere, because this is a portion of the testimony where they broke away to commercial.

I transcribed it myself. It brings up the other witness we have not heard about, and informs us further the investigators believe the evidence is not consistent with Zimmerman's story of his head "being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk."

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

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 1:47 (this portion)