Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

O'mara was telling the detective that there was a "specific" word that he wanted to associate with the term profiling

You've lost me.

Why was O'mara incapable of saying that word himself?

What "word" are you talking about?? I'm afraid you've totally lost me and I suspect others as well. Here was the exchange you quoted, it's a simple exchange where he asks the detective why they used the word profiled. There's nothing about any other word Omara won't say at all . The intent of the questioning was clear. The word profile is code for "race" profiling. Omara was therefore subtly asking him why they chose to use that word, to see if they have any evidence that is in fact why GZ was concerned about TM:

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?*

*p.s. If that is what you are talking about, he's asking him if HE was the one that chose to use the word profile. He's not asking him for another word. Sorry if there is something I am missing here or not following.

 

[GWCarver]

OK, but do you think this interpretation on my part is correct? Was the prosecutor actually saying B?

Actually, it would be more like "C", with "C" being the prosecutor knew this would probably be the only chance they would ever have to confront Zimmerman on the stand, so he wanted to get some kind of admission of wrongdoing out of him. If you follow the flow of questioning below (from transcripts at CNN - I can't post URL's yet...) you will see that he was just throwing the first question out there and hoping Zimmerman would be dumb enough to answer it, or his counsel would be incompetent and not object. Notice when the judge says he will allow a little bit of leeway after the objection, the prosecutor comes back with the more incriminating "contradictions" replacing the original "inconsistencies." Then the judge shuts him down, leaving him to ask meekly whether or not he changed his story, and Zimmerman replies, "absolutely not".

I should add that Zimmerman was grilled by three different law enforcement agencies, so there would be inconsistencies if only because of the questions asked and the time to answer. Inconsistencies are not necessarily incriminating, as this prosecutor would like everyone to believe. Neither is the inability to remember something in many hours of interviews.

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.

 

[sugaree]

I don't know if that girl is DeeDee or not, but I really wish this minor hadn't been identified (by the blog, not here, because if her identity's out, it's out). She is going to be dragged through the mud on the Internet.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I should add that Zimmerman was grilled by three different law enforcement agencies, so there would be inconsistencies if only because of the questions asked and the time to answer. Inconsistencies are not necessarily incriminating, as this prosecutor would like everyone to believe. Neither is the inability to remember something in many hours of interviews.

Yep, agree 100%. In fact I think with a good questioner/s and hours of questioning it's probably going to be almost impossible not to have some contradictions of some type. I suspect the biggest difficulty is when you are asked something you are not sure of and guess, then you get asked again later and give a different answer or guess. On the other hand if you say "I don't know", they'll make hay of that too. It would not be fun for anyone to be grilled that way, that's for sure.

 

[Drs_Res]

And that is why you say NOTHING when questioned. Claim the 5th and ask for an/your attorney, guilty or not.

 

[curi0us]

Is that what O'mara said? Given his tactic in court, I would expect him to be more precise in his language.

He made a few errors in speaking which I think are natural or at least unavoidable for most people. For the affidavit he did put some effort into hair splitting the definition of a few words, but I think it's fair to scrutinize prepared written words with more vigor. For Gilbreath he wasn't using gotcha tactics IMO, it was just glaring how little Gilbreath knew about the case.

Is there anyone besides O'mara that doesn't accept that George had profiled Trayvon as someone that didn't belong in "his" neighborhood?

I don't accept it at the moment just because I see a lack of evience in this regard and the world "profiled" isn't very well defined. It's never been clarified if what made GZ think TM was suspicious was just GZ being paranoid (profiling?), or if TM was legitimately doing something worthy of suspicion. I'm sure more will come out on this.

I thought it was an interesting exchange in court because O'Mara seemed like he was gathering evidence against the prosecution. More then once he queried Gilbreath about who was involved in the investigation and preparing the affidavit. My suspicion is that O'Mara is working an angle besides just proving GZ innocent.

 

[curi0us]

You've lost me, what are you talking about??

What "word" are you talking about??

"Racist" I think. I may have caused a little confusion here by using a part of the transcript focusing on the end of that exchange. It starts off with the peanut butter moment.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Is there anyone besides O'mara that doesn't accept that George had profiled Trayvon as someone that didn't belong in "his" neighborhood?

The problem is that this type of question and the whole race profiling thing is a complex multi-layered issue, but most of the people playing it up want it to mean "that damn racist GZ followed TM because he was black". Race could be one of many factors that caused GZ's suspicion, and he may or may not even be aware that race factored into his decision.

One of the things GZ reported was that TM was acting weird. As another person astutely pointed out, that might have been because TM was talking on a headset and GZ did not realize it. It might have been where he was walking. It might have been because he was black. Would his suspicion have been the same if it were a white person? Or would it have fallen below his threshold. I suspect even GZ probably doesn't know the answer to that.

 

[Dan O.]

You've lost me.

Perhaps once you've watched the video you'll get back on track.

 

[johnny karate]

Crump is actually at the heart of this. Crump (in some manner) actually manipulated into existence the states two witnesses against GZ that are the core of the probable cause affidavit. Crump's PR use of the underage photo were critical to getting Mary Cutcher to say she Knew GZ was guilty, that was huge point in the media narrative. Crump is even the guy that got TriforCharity and TheL8Elvis fighting over the rain issue. Seriously, Crump is bad news.

Ha ha... what?!?

I had to skip right to that part before continuing. Please tell me you're kidding. It will let me know if I should bother responding to any more of your posts as if I was responding to a serious person discussing facts and not conspiracy theories.

 

[Rare Truth]

Answering someone like that who's just making an honest inquiry or observation is not helpful to engagement . I suspect he/she is aware of the fact that police can lie to trick a person, I don't think that's what he was asking. He said:


I think he's asking if they can lie about it now. Meaning, can the state claim the police did not believe him that night, now, even if that's not true (i.e. even if it was an act and they did not disbelieve him).

I watched that exchange and for those of is not involved in law enforcement it's easy to miss:


To any layman it sounds like that literally means "the police did not believe you", but what I suspect it means is "the police were pretending/saying they didn't believe you".

It's a huge difference actually, especially for the layman. Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretations.

Thank you, NBS. That was indeed how I asked the question, sincerely, - in regards to now, in court. I know police officers can lie. My question was if the state can lie in court.

I see that if I am not versed in 394 U.S.statue blah blah blah, I must be an idiot.

I do appreciate your input. I'm relatively new here and grappling at basic information, but still consider myself fairly astute. Still, I regret I did not pass the 394 U.S.statue xxxx.xx.xx test.

Your response was appreciated. Sincerely.

 

[crimresearch]

Thank you, NBS. That was indeed how I asked the question, sincerely, - in regards to now, in court. I know police officers can lie. My question was if the state can lie in court.

I see that if I am not versed in 394 U.S.statue blah blah blah, I must be an idiot.

I do appreciate your input. I'm relatively new here and grappling at basic information, but still consider myself fairly astute. Still, I regret I did not pass the 394 U.S.statue xxxx.xx.xx test.

Your response was appreciated. Sincerely.

Had you bothered to read what was posted, instead of knee-jerk ridiculing it as a 'statue blah blah', you would know that your question was answered... sincerely, just like others before you have been.

 

[curi0us]

Ha ha... what?!?

I had to skip right to that part before continuing. Please tell me you're kidding. It will let me know if I should bother responding to any more of your posts as if I was responding to a serious person discussing facts and not conspiracy theories.

Seriously based in fact but written to be funny.

Story about Sanford Mayor releasing the 911 tapes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-usa-florida-shooting-mayor-idUSBRE82T04O20120330
^v
Crump's team manipulated the Mayor of Sanford into releasing the 911 tapes, in his office, with only the Mayor, City Manager, the Martin family and Crump's team present. That was the setting that TM's mom made her voice ID of the screamer. It's a garbage ID, like doing a line up with just one person. GZ had no representation there and the police we're not involved with the process.

Four days later Crump gives a press conference about TM's newly discovered girlfriend ear witness. Where was she all this time? I dunno exactly what is going on with the GF but Crump telling the GF's story only after he got the 911 tapes released is off the charts suspicious. At absolute best a legit witness held back their side of the story till after they could alter parts to match the 911 calls.

Cutcher I've mentioned before, it's been clear for a while that she jumped to the conclusion that the "whine" she heard was the "little boy" as described by Crump's PR team.

As far as the rain goes it was integral to Crump's version of events where TM is just taking shelter from the rain when GZ profiles him.

There's a lot more actually, but those were the points I raised in that post you questioned.

 

[johnny karate]

Seriously based in fact but written to be funny.

Story about Sanford Mayor releasing the 911 tapes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-usa-florida-shooting-mayor-idUSBRE82T04O20120330
^v
Crump's team manipulated the Mayor of Sanford into releasing the 911 tapes, in his office, with only the Mayor, City Manager, the Martin family and Crump's team present. That was the setting that TM's mom made her voice ID of the screamer. It's a garbage ID, like doing a line up with just one person. GZ had no representation there and the police we're not involved with the process.

Four days later Crump gives a press conference about TM's newly discovered girlfriend ear witness. Where was she all this time? I dunno exactly what is going on with the GF but Crump telling the GF's story only after he got the 911 tapes released is off the charts suspicious. At absolute best a legit witness held back their side of the story till after they could alter parts to match the 911 calls.

Cutcher I've mentioned before, it's been clear for a while that she jumped to the conclusion that the "whine" she heard was the "little boy" as described by Crump's PR team.

As far as the rain goes it was integral to Crump's version of events where TM is just taking shelter from the rain when GZ profiles him.

There's a lot more actually, but those were the points I raised in that post you questioned.

So... conspiracy theory it is then. Good luck with that.

 

[LTC8K6]

He has been released. Just breaking.

 

[This is The End]

He has been released. Just breaking.

George Zimmerman released from Florida jail on $150,000 bail in Trayvon Martin murder case

George Zimmerman was released without incident around midnight Sunday from a Florida county jail on $150,000 bail as he awaits his second-degree murder trial for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin.

<snip>

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester said at a hearing Friday that Zimmerman cannot have any guns and must observe a 7 p.m.-to-6 a.m. curfew. Zimmerman also surrendered his passport.

Zimmerman had to put up 10 percent, or $15,000, to make bail. His father had indicated he might take out a second mortgage.

<snip>

Bail is not unheard of in second-degree murder cases, and legal experts had predicted it would be granted for Zimmerman because of his ties to the community, because he turned himself in after he was charged last week, and because he has never been convicted of a serious crime.

What "ties to the community"?

 

[Cylinder]

What "ties to the community"?

The normal bond stuff - he's lived in the area ~10 years, was employed there during this time, has family there, has a residence, etc... In other words, the court considers a defendant less of a flight risk if they have strong roots in the jurisdiction.

 

[Cylinder]

Why don't you show the whole exchange?

It was trunacated for clarity and Fair Use.

O'mara was telling the detective that there was a "specific" word that he wanted to associate with the term profiling.

Right, earlier he was challenging the use of the word profiling in a probable cause affidavit and the implication of the choice of that word.

O'MARA: That he had an ice tea and a bag of Skittles, that he walked back into the gated community, he was on his way back when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. If I say to you the word peanut butter, what do you think?

GILBREATH: Jelly.

O'MARA: OK, Moe, Larry and --

GILBREATH: Curly.

O'MARA: OK, when I say the word profiling, what do you think?

GILBREATH: I believe you're applying a predetermined thought pattern to a set of circumstances.

O'MARA: No other word comes to mind when I say profiled to you?

GILBREATH: I gave you my answer, sir.

Then O'Mara questions directly if the investigation had drawn any conclusion concering why Zimmerman "profiled" Martin.

O'MARA: OK, I appreciate the answer. Did you consider it to be some specific type of profiling?

GILBREATH: No.

The first snippet was examining the probable cause affidavit. The second was examining the results of the investigation.

Why was O'mara incapable of saying that word himself?

I suppose because he wanted to introduce if a conclusion was drawn about any type of profiling, not just one specific type.

Since it hasn't been linked in the last couple of pages, the partial transcript is here.

 

[Cylinder]

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?

They would be in very deep fecal matter if they ignored or "forgot to ask for" an EMT assessment. They wouldn't be bound by what the EMT thought or believed, but they couldn't pretend like it didn't exist because they felt it might be exculpatory.

The state has a fairly strong affirmative obligation to investigate all reasonable evidence and alternate theories of the crime.

For instance, I am implicated in a murder. During the course of the investigation, they found that the murder weapon was purchased at the local Walmart using my credit card. Let's say the receipt was left at the crime scene covered in the victim's blood. That would be pretty damning evidence. The police would still have a pretty strong obligation to go to Walmart and say look at the video to see if they could find out who actually used the card.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/22/54738/3187

How will Corey get around John?