Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

That's a good question. I can't answer it, but would like to as to the question.

Are medical records in any way protected (as in HIPAA, maybe) in a criminal investigation ? I.E. the fact that he was treated can be disclosed, but not the actual medical information ? Does that fall into any kind of self incrimination ?

IANAL, sorry if this is a ridiculous question.

 

[KatieG]

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.



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

Just because you continue to say that, doesn't mean it's what actually happened. There is no known evidence that the shooting agrees with GZ's story. I suspect the call GZ made and the forensics will show GZ did follow TM. The timeline and location of the body doesn't work any other way. Nothing has been released as far as the FBI's info is concerned. There is no indication the GF story is sham. The phone records match up. No debate about that.

After spending a few hours searching on my own and with some help from my other forum friends, we did not find anything that backed up my previous post. The closest we could find was the link Curious posted. There was a post referring to the GF but it was not an MSM link, so nothing official.

OMG, I was wrong again! How ever will I live with the shame...

 

[Kestrel]

That's a good question. I can't answer it, but would like to as to the question.

Are medical records in any way protected (as in HIPAA, maybe) in a criminal investigation ? I.E. the fact that he was treated can be disclosed, but not the actual medical information ? Does that fall into any kind of self incrimination ?

IANAL, sorry if this is a ridiculous question.

A criminal investigation can access medical records with a court order.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I transcribed it myself.

Thanks !

Perhaps based on the location of the sidewalk and the bodies.

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."

I'm certainly interested to hear the States scenario of what happened.

 

[Dan O.]

Why haven't we heard directly from George Zimmerman exactly what he claims happened that night?

 

[tyr_13]

Why haven't we heard directly from George Zimmerman exactly what he claims happened that night?

I'd wager it's because his current lawyers are actually minimally competent and as such have told him not to speak of it until trial.

 

[Dan O.]

I'd wager it's because his current lawyers are actually minimally competent and as such have told him not to speak of it until trial.

So they aren't so much interested in revealing the truth as being able to adjust their version of the truth after they learn what the state has been able to find.

 

[Rare Truth]

So they aren't so much interested in revealing the truth as being able to adjust their version of the truth after they learn what the state has been able to find.

Isn't that SOP for most lawyers in general?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

Just because you continue to say that, doesn't mean it's what actually happened. There is no known evidence that the shooting agrees with GZ's story.

If we can be slightly liberal with the definitions of known and evidence (since otherwise we can't really discuss the case or speculate) we have:

• The photographer if the back of GZ head claims to have seen powder burns on TM hoodie.
• Gilbreath testified as to as to the powder burns and stippling being consistent with a close range shot.
• witness who saw GZ being beaten and heard him scream

IMHO, those count as known evidence for GZ story, even when leaving off his injuries

I suspect the call GZ made and the forensics will show GZ did follow TM. The timeline and location of the body doesn't work any other way.

GZ already stated on the call he was following TM. IF you mean continued to follow,
Gilbreath has already testified that the state has no evidence to contradict GZ story he was not following TM and returning to his truck.
So maybe you know something he doesn't ?

Nothing has been released as far as the FBI's info is concerned.

Again, Gilbreath testified that the FBI did voice analysis, and it did not help the States case. I can only assume that means it did not identify the voice as TM. If it excluded GZ, i would assume that would help the state. ETA - so I assume it didn't exclude GZ, or was inconclusive. I am sure more will follow on this, eventually. But Gilbreath certainly gave us a tantalizing glimpse.

There is no indication the GF story is sham. The phone records match up. No debate about that.

Well, we don't have any evidence yet it was her on the other end ... that phone number is redacted. But I am willing to grant that it is her.

HOWEVER - the pages seen of the record so far in no way indicate TM was on the phone with her 400 minuets that day as Crump claimed. Whether you like it or not, the link I posted the other day makes a good case of who DeeDee is , and if correct it makes Crump a complete liar. So, in fact, we have evidence the whole story built around the girlfriend is a sham.

I already posted my opinion about the site with the story about deeDee. But that doesn't mean I can't look at the information they posted and follow their arguments.
Can you do the same ?

 

[tyr_13]

So they aren't so much interested in revealing the truth as being able to adjust their version of the truth after they learn what the state has been able to find.

I'm not sure how far back I have to go to explain. How familiar with the US legal system are you?

Basically even if you know your client is 100% innocent, it would be foolishly stupid (or stupidly foolish) to advise a client to give out more and more information that might be spun, misinterpreted, or even outright lied about. Irrelevant details not matching can be ballooned into shot integrity for no rational reason.

And even if you know your client is guilty, as a lawyer you still have to try to defend them. It's the courts job to find the truth.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So they aren't so much interested in revealing the truth as being able to adjust their version of the truth after they learn what the state has been able to find.

Or it could be just as O'mara said:
"It's an overall philosophy of trying to keep the information flow concentrated within the court system," O'Mara said. "It's much better handled there."

 

[epepke]

I'm not sure how far back I have to go to explain. How familiar with the US legal system are you?

Basically even if you know your client is 100% innocent, it would be foolishly stupid (or stupidly foolish) to advise a client to give out more and more information that might be spun, misinterpreted, or even outright lied about. Irrelevant details not matching can be ballooned into shot integrity for no rational reason.

And even if you know your client is guilty, as a lawyer you still have to try to defend them. It's the courts job to find the truth.

There are also the teensy weensy little bits about how the prosecution and defense get to know about each other's evidence and how there are supposed to be trials by disinterested parties rather than with every idea filtered through the media and blabbed to everyone.

 

[Dan O.]

Or it could be just as O'mara said:
"It's an overall philosophy of trying to keep the information flow concentrated within the court system," O'Mara said. "It's much better handled there."

THe information that George was returning to his truck did not stay within the court system. They are being selective about what gets out so I'm not going to accept their half truths. If they want me to believe that George was returning to his truck they aree going to have to make it clear where he went and the path he took.

 

[Rare Truth]

Why haven't we heard directly from George Zimmerman exactly what he claims happened that night?

Well, we did hear this:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"?
O'MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.

JUDGE LESTER: We'll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?
JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.
O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?
ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

The prosecution tried to get it in there how many inconsistencies were found in Z's story, but "outside the scope of direct evidence" shut it off...however, I think the state was hinting at how many inconsistencies they found to his whole story, and with this snuck in:

"when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?

He's saying that night the police didn't believe Zimmerman. Can the state lie about that?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

THe information that George was returning to his truck did not stay within the court system. They are being selective about what gets out so I'm not going to accept their half truths. If they want me to believe that George was returning to his truck they aree going to have to make it clear where he went and the path he took.

The lead investigator already admitted the state has no evidence to contradict GZ story he was returning to his truck. But you disbelieve it because ... ?

Also, I rather doubt GZ attorney gives two ***** about what you believe.

 

[Dan O.]

The lead investigator already admitted the state has no evidence to contradict GZ story he was returning to his truck. But you disbelieve it because ... ?

Also, I rather doubt GZ attorney gives two ***** about what you believe.

It a story that cannot be contradicted because it allows George to be anywhere.

And as far as we know, George's attorney is not defending George on the Internet forums. But there is a debate going on here and the partial evidence is being touted as the truth here.

 

[crimresearch]

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?

The defense will have access to the documentation from the first phone call and ICR on out.

And the fact that the observations and conclusions shifted as the investigation went along, or that decisions were reversed, is usually not very significant by itself.

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't deny "confront" can be an ambiguous term absent context.

But I do deny that "loaded" and "ambiguous" have even remotely similar meanings. That someone uses those words incorrectly doesn't make me the confused one for assuming they're smart enough to know the difference.

I take responsibility for the lack of clarity. I am trying to keep it short. I will put it this way. Loaded and ambiguous are not interchangable. The word was loaded, but the context in which I used it was ambiguous. When I used the word confront, did I mean that Zimmerman charged up to Trayvon, spun him around by the shoulder and demanded to know why he was walking around the community; or did I mean he approached Trayvon and asked him what he is doing in the community? That was the question he/she was asking me.

 

[Newtons Bit]

And here's some pretty slimy behavior by the WaPo.

 

[curi0us]

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.

A few more O'Mara vs Gilbreath moments along the lines of the ones Cylinder's great post already quoted:

O'MARA: How about the dad's ability to identify whether or not that was Trayvon's voice?
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: You're not aware of any inquiries made to Trayvon's dad as to whether or not he could identify that voice as being his son's? GILBREATH: NoO'MARA: Nothing further, your honor.

Sanford PD had TM's dad do a voice ID for the 911 screams and he said it wasn't TM.

OK, maybe the voice ID, and the injuries/medical records were not Gilbreath's focus since the primary issue in the case is really wether or not GZ's version of events is true, but Gilbreath doesn't know of any evidence to contradict that either:

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

O'MARA: Ok. Now, you know as one of the chief investigators that is the primary focus in this case, is it not?

GILBREATH: There are many focuses in this case.

O'MARA: That would be considered the primary, would it not, in your opinion, 35 years experience?

GILBREATH: I don't know that it's primary. It's one of the concerns, yes.

O'MARA: Nothing further.

WTF kind of investigation was Gilbreath a part of?

Here is an interesting moment where O'Mara isn't just grilling Gilbreath but also going after his "collaborative" team:

O'MARA: Why did you use the word profiling rather than noticed, observed, saw, or anything besides the very precise word profiled? And by the way, was that your word?

GILBREATH: I don't recall. This was a collaborative answer -- excuse me, collaborative document.

O'MARA: Between who in addition to the two people who signed it as being true?

GILBREATH: Detective Osteen and I prepared the majority of this. It was reviewed by our supervisor. There were several mistakes in it. They were corrected.

O'MARA: Do you know whose word profiling was?

GILBREATH: No, I do not.