Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[This is The End]

6 weeks later, how much do they have ? Anything we are aware of ?

I have no idea since none of them have bothered to consult with me! How about you?

Well, instead of waiting for anyone involved with the investigation to come consult with me, I've done my own research on the information that has been released, testimony given at hearings, etc. Perhaps you could consider doing the same.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency
"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."[/I]

The lead investigator already admitted the state has no evidence to contradict GZ story he was returning to his truck.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
GILBREATH: Do I know?
O'MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.

I have a feeling that they have more of a case than they let on in the bond hearing. Even to the point where it could have been perjury. Do normal perjury rules apply in that bond hearing? Perhaps a loophole where they only have to acknowledge evidence that is already public; so answering "no" in that situation would be technically correct. Anything like that?

 

[crimresearch]

I have a feeling that they have more of a case than they let on in the bond hearing. Even to the point where it could have been perjury. Do normal perjury rules apply in that bond hearing? Perhaps a loophole where they only have to acknowledge evidence that is already public; so answering "no" in that situation would be technically correct. Anything like that?

I wouldn't hold my breath on the perjury angle.

 

[Freddy]

I have a feeling that they have more of a case than they let on in the bond hearing. Even to the point where it could have been perjury. Do normal perjury rules apply in that bond hearing? Perhaps a loophole where they only have to acknowledge evidence that is already public; so answering "no" in that situation would be technically correct. Anything like that?

I tend to doubt that. Consider that it is very rare for a person charged with second degree murder not to be remanded. But Zimmerman's bond was set at just $150,000. That is low even for the rare case where a murder suspect is granted a bond at all.

The hearing clearly wasn't going well for the prosecution. Imagine you are the prosecutor, and you have strong evidence that the defendant murdered an unarmed teenager with malicious intent. And you have strong evidence that it was not self defense. Would you withhold that evidence if it meant that the killer would be able to make bond? What do you have to gain from doing that? Remember, the prosecutor will soon have to turn over all of the evidence to the defense anyway. I would go so far as to say that it would be profoundly unethical to allow a cold blooded killer to make bond when you had evidence that would have kept him locked up. I can't imagine a situation in which it would benefit the prosecution to do so. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that the prosecution is in serious trouble. As I said, I think O'Mara is going to eat their lunch.

 

[Freddy]

And I can't think of any particular reason why someone would arm himself to take a drive to the store.

Many concealed carriers carry pretty much anywhere they go. They don't arm themselves to go to the store. They just don't disarm themselves to go to the store.

 

[curi0us]

curi0us, if they had posted that photo of him in a suit, do you think the outrage would have been any less?!

Probably.

Besides people feeling greater sympathy for a child there is also a definite impact on natural assumptions about what probably happened. A big part of this story early on was people being in a state of disbelief that the Sanford police believed that the "250lb" GZ needed to shoot the "little boy" TM in self defense. The young man in the suit looks 100% respectable but he looks old and big enough that people wouldn't immediately assume that GZ's self defense story had to be bogus.

I suppose it might have changed the narrative a bit, but the case would otherwise seem to me to be every bit as heart wrenching and likely to inflame people.

Maybe.

Since you know they had the older photo why do you think they didn't use it?

It's clear that Cutcher came up with her comments based on what she saw in the media, but she's a very small and irrelevant part of this story IMO.

Of the four points I made JK picked this one to focus on.

It's the least relevant for sure. It's not relevant to GZ's guilt at all, but it does relate to the pressure that was applied to Mayor Triplett to release the 911 calls which results in the mothers (irresponsibly handled) voice ID and the sudden appearance of TM's GF.

(It's very possible that Cutcher just heard the PR story in the media and contacted a television station herself. It's also possible that she was already in contact with the Martin's attorneys when Cutcher gave her March 14th interview. By March 16th she was standing with the Martins and their attorneys during their press conference. That evening 911 tapes released.)

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

How recent was the photo of him in a suit? If it were recent, then I absolutely think the outrage would have been less. And not just less, but limited to the fringe crazies.

You think if the media photo used showed a handsome 17-year old in a suit, with the rest of the media narrative remaining the same would, the outrage would be limited to "fringe crazies"? Not sure how to even respond to that one.

The first stories I read about this case didn't even have pictures of TM and I felt outrage just based on the narrative. Which was "racist neighborhood watch white guy follows black kid who is walking home with iced tea and skittles and shoots him and racist white police department lets him off". No picture even necessary for outrage.

It wasn't even until I started reading and researching that I started to realize there may be a lot more to the story than the media presentation.

 

[curi0us]

Well, let's see:
cir·cum·stan·tial
(of evidence or a legal case) Pointing indirectly toward someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it

Are you saying that evidence that only "points indirectly" is not sufficient for you?

I provided a theory of why Cutcher said what she did with evidence. Now it's your turn. You respond with your theory of why she said what she did. You keep on avoiding what should be a very simple question for you to answer if you sincerely thought I was wrong.

Where do you think Cutcher got the idea that TM was a "little boy" and that he was "half the size" of GZ?

 

[eeyore1954]

And I can't think of any particular reason why someone would arm himself to take a drive to the store.

I agree but is it that uncommon there.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Probably.

Besides people feeling greater sympathy for a child there is also a definite impact on natural assumptions about what probably happened. A big part of this story early on was people being in a state of disbelief that the Sanford police believed that the "250lb" GZ needed to shoot the "little boy" TM in self defense. The young man in the suit looks 100% respectable but he looks old and big enough that people wouldn't immediately assume that GZ's self defense story had to be bogus.

I don't disagree that every way in which the media presented this case biased the hell out of people. All I'm saying is that it's composed of many pieces and I don't think changing the picture to a 17-year old would have dramatically reduced the outrage (assuming the other elements remained the same).

Since you know they had the older photo why do you think they didn't use it?

No idea, way too much speculation involved there for me. It could have been purposeful or innocent. If it was chosen by Crump I'd rate the likelihood of it being purposely manipulation 10x higher.

Of the four points I made JK picked this one to focus on...

You and Elvis have the patience of Job or are masochists as many posts you've wasted on that.

 

[Freddy]

You think if the media photo used showed a handsome 17-year old in a suit, with the rest of the media narrative remaining the same would, the outrage would be limited to "fringe crazies"? Not sure how to even respond to that one.

The first stories I read about this case didn't even have pictures of TM and I felt outrage just based on the narrative. Which was "racist neighborhood watch white guy follows black kid who is walking home with iced tea and skittles and shoots him and racist white police department lets him off". No picture even necessary for outrage.

It wasn't even until I started reading and researching that I started to realize there may be a lot more to the story than the media presentation.

I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you were talking about outrage over the fact that the picture used made Martin look considerably younger and smaller than he was. I think that is a fair objection, and I think using any recent photo would have been appropriate, and would not have drawn criticism. I do not think that outrage over Martin's death would have been much different if a more recent picture had been used, because Martin was not in fact doing anything wrong when Zimmerman started following him. But I also think that a picture of a twelve year old Martin made it much more difficult to see how Zimmerman could possibly have (1) seen Martin as suspicious, or (2) been overpowered by him in a fight.

 

[curi0us]

ROFL! That's funny. Never underestimate the power of feistier and smaller!

Yes, he did go to jail. For 60 days, 2 years probation. Judge wouldn't allow a restraining order, so I had to move to another town.

I knew I was in trouble when I saw the bottle coming towards my head. I had no idea he would go that far in the assault. Lucky for me, my next door neighbor called the cops.

Some jail is better then no jail but that just seems way too short a penalty to me. Very unfair about the restraining order as well.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you were talking about outrage over the fact that the picture used made Martin look considerably younger and smaller than he was. I think that is a fair objection.

I do not think that outrage over Martin's death would have been any less.

Got it. Considering how well reasoned the rest of your posts were I couldn't figure out that response, now it makes sense .

 

[johnny karate]

Are you saying that evidence that only "points indirectly" is not sufficient for you?

Is that what you want to go with? Can we apply that same standard of evidence when discussing Zimmerman's actions?

Because if memory serves, "circumstantial evidence" regarding the severity of Zimmerman's head wounds didn't quite cut it for you. You know, because of the Celox.

I provided a theory of why Cutcher said what she did with evidence. Now it's your turn. You respond with your theory of why she said what she did. You keep on avoiding what should be a very simple question for you to answer if you sincerely thought I was wrong.

Where do you think Cutcher got the idea that TM was a "little boy" and that he was "half the size" of GZ?

I don't know. It was dark and raining. Martin was lying on the ground. Perhaps she honestly thought he was a little boy and half Zimmerman's size.

Being mistaken doesn't automatically mean you're lying. And if you're going to accuse someone of lying, you have to prove they are lying with something a little more convincing then "I think that person is lying". Nor does anyone else have to disprove your assertion. The burden is entirely on you.

But I don't really care because what she said or why she said it is meaningless to me. I chose that particular assertion randomly from one of several you made in your conspiracy web. They're all equally unsubstantiated and equally meaningless in determining the truth of what happened.

 

[Dan O.]

I tend to doubt that. Consider that it is very rare for a person charged with second degree murder not to be remanded. But Zimmerman's bond was set at just $150,000. That is low even for the rare case where a murder suspect is granted a bond at all.

It may be better this way. George cannot appear in public or word will get out where he is. George is effectively confined to his own prison and the time won't be credited to time served.

The prosecution may not care either way about George's temporary free status. But giving George a longer leash allows George more opportunity to assist in his own prosecution.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I've said this before so forgive me for repeating it. During the Duke Lacross fiasco many reporters kept saying things like, "the prosecution must have evidence we don't know about.". No, the prosecution didn't. That kind of of inductive reasoning is just inviting madness.

My prediction: Other than the voice analysis, which is looking shaky, we know most if not all of the significant evidence about this case. Everything here after is going to be anti-climatic to say the least. If what we got isn't enough then I'm sorry, the case isn't there, my 2 cents.

And even after you pointed this out the same argument was being made a page or so later. Your point here deserves "sticky status" in this thread. And as was also pointed out, if the prosecution has more damning evidence and kept it a secret at the bond hearing when it could have kept GZ in jail, it would seem to border on negligence not to reveal it.

 

[KatieG]

I have been told and have been unable to find any facts to back up someone's (not here) claim that GZ's bail was calculated on his ability to pay. That sounds ridiculous but who knows. I always thought bail was determined by the severity of the crime.

I have looked on Florida law websites and can find nothing that gives me a clear answer. Would it be fair to a guy (a generic guy) making minimum wage to be forced to come up with $1 million bail? It probably wouldn't be possible but wouldn't that mean the accused would never be released on bail, no matter what?

 

[crimresearch]

I have been told and have been unable to find any facts to back up someone's (not here) claim that GZ's bail was calculated on his ability to pay. That sounds ridiculous but who knows. I always thought bail was determined by the severity of the crime.

I have looked on Florida law websites and can find nothing that gives me a clear answer. Would it be fair to a guy (a generic guy) making minimum wage to be forced to come up with $1 million bail? It probably wouldn't be possible but wouldn't that mean the accused would never be released on bail, no matter what?

It isn't supposed to be equitable, it is supposed to be enough to either keep people in jail, keep them from fleeing, or ensure their appearance at trial.
Source of funds to post bail may be considered but it isn't a major factor in general.

http://www.nejamelaw.com/bail-bond-hearing.htm

 

[KatieG]

It isn't supposed to be equitable, it is supposed to be enough to either keep people in jail, keep them from fleeing, or ensure their appearance at trial.
Source of funds to post bail may be considered but it isn't a major factor in general.

http://www.nejamelaw.com/bail-bond-hearing.htm

Thanks! I've bookmarked that site since I see it may answer a lot of my questions. I was looking at standard Florida law sites and they were short on info about bail.

 

[This is The End]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...curity-Job-Due-To-Temper-and-Being-Liability-

In 2005, the same year that Zimmerman lost his security guard job, he was also arrested for “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both third-degree felonies. Those charges were dropped after he agreed to enter an alcohol education program.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...estic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer

Court documents obtained by msnbc.com on Tuesday evening show that George Zimmerman, who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, went to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence, tussling with a police officer and speeding.
The three incidents took place in Orange County, Fla.
In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program.

Did you forget the last time you asked me about that or did I miss where you debunked it?


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-martin-case-zimmerman-had-run-in-with-police

The incident occurred when Zimmerman allegedly interfered with an undercover officer attempting to arrest employees of a bar on charges of selling alcohol to minors, NBC News National Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff reported.

The court ordered Zimmerman to attend anger management classes. Get the full story in the video above.

Do you have anything to back that up ?

I believe it was originally from this video:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46910559/

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-martin-case-zimmerman-had-run-in-with-police

The incident occurred when Zimmerman allegedly interfered with an undercover officer attempting to arrest employees of a bar on charges of selling alcohol to minors, NBC News National Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff reported.

The court ordered Zimmerman to attend anger management classes.

 

[Cylinder]

I have a feeling that they have more of a case than they let on in the bond hearing. Even to the point where it could have been perjury. Do normal perjury rules apply in that bond hearing? Perhaps a loophole where they only have to acknowledge evidence that is already public; so answering "no" in that situation would be technically correct. Anything like that?

They will probably have evidence not presented at the bond hearing, but in no way are they allowed to lie about anything in any sworn testimony or statement. The judge - not the witness - is the one that determines if a specific line of testimony is relevant to the particular hearing or procedure. If Det. Gilbreath lied about the presence or absence of evidence under oath, the prosecutor would be required to inform the defense or she would be facing a Brady violation.