Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Cylinder]

Discovery says W9 was never ID'd.

But the list of discovery shows W9 and Perkins, who took the call on 2/28.

Then it shows a 3/20 date for SAO. So they apparently did ID the caller and get a statement?

IIRC, that's a good account. W9 had the initial call and a followup interview with FDLE/SAO.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Seriously? You honestly think witnesses are interviewed exactly one time before a murder case goes to trial?



Here are some links. But I'm not sure there's any definitive documentation, or how much evidence you are going to demand to prove something that seems fairly obvious.

Obvious to who ? I am not a murder investigation expert.
But on Monk and Psych, they sometimes talk to some witnesses more than once. Like when there is new information and they hadn't asked about a certain detail, for example.
But they also solve the crime in an hour, so ...

But honestly, I don't know why they would go back weeks later just to ask the same questions ? I don't expect it's a question with a statistical answer you can point to, but I don't know that it's as obvious as you believe.

How many times did they talk to the EMTs ? Didn't many of the re-interviews happen because they replaced Wolfinger, not because they were scheduled to happen ?

 

[Cylinder]

It is in the interest of the defense to want that sealed in a high profile case, statements might be cherry-picked from it to defame the defendant even if the context itself is exculpatory.

MOM also hinted in the hearing on the media motions that some of Zimmerman's statements may have been illegally obtained. I don't know if he was trying to kick the can or if he plans on challenging the initial statements.

 

[Kaosium]

Myself? Purposefully pull my car over and stare at someone, and then get out and follow them after they pass by, as Zimmerman did? Actually, I *never* do this, because pretty much every guy where I'm from would see this as threatening. And as a matter of fact, if I'm walking behind a woman, at night, on an otherwise empty street, I'll likely walk to the other side to let her know that I'm not about to jump her from behind.

Have you ever seen someone pull to the side of the road to take a call on a cell phone? Do you freak out and run, even if they're looking at you which might simply be because you're moving in their field of vision?

It's interesting how so many of Zimmerman's defenders make it out like Zimmerman just pulled over for a stroll, and just happened to be somewhere near Martin when he did this. In reality, it's perfectly clear that Zimmerman had decided, for no apparent reason, that he had to at the very least keep a close watch on Martin. And given that all Martin knew was that some random guy was chasing him when he was just walking home, I'd say he was absolutely correct to be frightened or upset.

Zimmerman said he did so because he thought Trayvon was acting suspiciously, walking strangely and eying the houses in the neighborhood. Then when TM noticed him he took off running, which could easily be interpreted as somewhat suspicious. That TM had just gone to the store for 'tea and skittles' is rather dubious considering that according to the timestamps he must have taken 45 minutes to walk roughly a thousand yards.

This ended with TM administering a beating to GZ, unwilling to budge even when a bystander told him he was calling police with wounds all over GZ's face and head. The evidence suggests that TM was exactly the sort one might want to call police on, his subsequent running and eventually beating of George Zimmerman hardly justified by George pulling over to use the phone and then running after him and stopping not long afterward.

Think about it this way: had the police gotten there moments earlier before the shot, just what do you think would have been the outcome of this event? Probably jail time for Trayvon, and it would simply be a lesson for GZ that if you call the police on someone you think dangerous it would be best to let them handle it.

 

[el buscador]

GZ was to TM the same as TM was to GZ.

 

[BenBurch]

No, it's the first one. What Ben said.

Here you go:

Correct.

 

[BenBurch]

Yep, and that he was sure that Trayvon was the one on top. You didn't include that part, did you? ...

The fact that the story changed will be admitted into evidence and will impeach the witness. Sorry, but he's not useful to the defense at all.

 

[Kaosium]

GZ was to TM the same as TM was to GZ.

Why? Pulling over to use the phone is not an uncommon event. Someone running when they see that is rather suspicious as it suggests they might be afraid of being seen--or that someone might be calling police.

 

[Kaosium]

The fact that the story changed will be admitted into evidence and will impeach the witness. Sorry, but he's not useful to the defense at all.

Have you listened to the interview?

I know what you mean, but I think you ought to actually hear what he has to say before you come to that conclusion.

 

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic
Hey, I've got a question. Why wasn't GZ charged with perjury? Does anyone think perjury charges for GZ are coming soon?

Providing False Information in Bail Application “Unlike Perjury, Providing False Information in a Bail Application does not require a person to be under oath.

”-- Richard Hornsby

If accused of Providing False Information in Bail Application, you need to know the:

• Definition of Providing False Information in Bail Application
• Penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application
• Defenses to Providing False Information in Bail Application

Definition of Providing False Information in Bail Application

The crime of Providing False Information in a Bail Application [1] occurs when a person:

1. Applies for bail or for a modification of bail; and
2. Intentionally provides false or misleading material information, or intentionally omits material information, in the application.

Difference Between Perjury

Unlike Perjury, Providing False Information in a Bail Application does not require a person to be under oath and simply punishes one who intentionally provides or omits material information in an application for bail.
However, since both statutes punish the same basic crime (i.e., the violation of a legal obligation to tell the truth); a person can only be convicted of one crime due to Double Jeopardy protections (even if they were originally charged with both). [2]
Penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application

The penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application differ depending on whether the false information was made in relation to an application for bond on felon or misdemeanor.
Felony Penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application

If the application for bond related to a Capital, Life, First Degree, or Second Degree felony then the crime of Providing False Information in a Bail Application is prosecuted as a Third Degree Felony.
If convicted of felony Providing False Information in a Bail Application, a judge can impose any combination of the following penalties:

• Up to five (5) years in jail.
• Up to five (5) years of probation.
• Up to $5,000 in fines.

http://www.richardhornsby.com/crime...ng-false-information-in-bail-application.html

 

[Cylinder]

Have you listened to the interview?

I know what you mean, but I think you ought to actually hear what he has to say before you come to that conclusion.

If you're are talking about W6, you're right. He's clear, articulate and thoughful in his answers. He corroborates two key data points of Zimmerman's claim - Martin on top of Zimmerman and the altercation moving from grass to concrete. W6 was around 20 feet from the altercation with an unobstructed view. W6 also states that Martin would not get off Zimmerman when he told him the cops were on the way.

 

[johnny karate]

Unless of course she thinks they're talking about their own assets and not the ones that came in through the paypal account, which she acknowledges in the next question, doesn't she?

I don't know what kind of pretzel logic you're attempting here, but the money in their Paypal account belonged to them. It was part of their assets.

You are talking nonsense.

Note there's no surprise on the part of the prosecutor, nor even much interest in finding out the correct amount, is there? Maybe that's because both of them thought he was referring to what she had inherently and not the money that was being transferred temporarily and in the process of being spent to allow them to live in hiding? The rest of which would end up in an account for legal expenses they didn't actually have direct access to?

More nonsense.

Zimmerman's wife was asked several direct questions about the money.

She lied.

Repeatedly.

 

[johnny karate]

Yep, and that he was sure that Trayvon was the one on top. You didn't include that part, did you? I think people should listen to the whole thing, my suspicion is that 'John' will turn out to be an excellent witness to the event corroborating George Zimmerman's account.

Was Martin being on top ever in question? That information has been known for a while, and I'm not aware that anyone is challenging it.

But just because Martin was on top doesn't prove he was hitting Zimmerman repeatedly or bashing his head on the ground.

All it proves was that Martin was on top.

As Witness #6 puts it:

I can't truly see how close they were to each other; if he was hitting him, or if he was trying to hold him down in that position until cops got there.

Being as there's copious physical evidence of it occurring, the likelihood that Trayvon was hitting George Zimmerman is pretty damned high. 'John' noting that Trayvon was in control of the fight, surprised him by refusing to disengage when 'John' told him he was calling police, and just exactly why he came to the logical conclusion that it was George Zimmerman yelling for help suggests to me that parsing things out of context to try to pretend he 'changed his story' won't make him a less credible witness in court.

There is zero evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman more than once, or that he was bashing his head on the ground.

That you jump to this conclusion without any corroborating evidence, while simultaneously denying the evidence that Zimmerman's wife committed perjury is some serious cognitive dissonance.

Incidentally, have you wondered why the prosecution wanted to hide George Zimmerman's statements to police from the public?

I wasn't aware that they did. Cite?

 

[Cylinder]

There is zero evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman more than once, or that he was bashing his head on the ground.

Multiple injury sites, witnesses reporting sounds of fighting, witnesses seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman "struggling," lack of pre-mortme injuries to Martin.

 

[johnny karate]

Johnny, the marks all over George Zimmerman's face are evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Not absolute evidence, but evidence none the less.

Marks all over Zimmerman's face? Please cite in the medical documentation what injuries to the face Zimmerman suffered other than a broken nose.

Then please explain how this proves Martin attacked Zimmerman, as opposed to perhaps defending himself when Zimmerman attacked him?

Otherwise how do you suppose they convict people for mugging people if there's no video cameras around? After all the victim might have attacked the mugger!

I would imagine those cases are much easier to prosecute when the person accused of being a mugger wasn't walking home from the store, while the person claiming they were mugged wasn't following the "mugger" around with a gun.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't know what kind of pretzel logic you're attempting here, but the money in their Paypal account belonged to them. It was part of their assets.

What makes you think she would automatically assume that money from someone else that she's transferring for someone else that ends up in an account they won't have direct access to constitutes 'her' or even 'their' assets?

You are talking nonsense.

I disagree, I think in the end this will be revealed as the petty trumped-up charge that it is.

Zimmerman's wife was asked several direct questions about the money.

Actually she was asked only one question about the paypal money, and she answered it.

She lied.

Repeatedly.

Does that make any sense? No, because it would be silly to try to deceive them about something they already knew about during routine questions. At most she made a mistake.

 

[Dancing David]

I have no problem admitting Zimmerman's wife probably committed a crime. I say probably because I don't know all the technical legal ins and outs.

Can you admit the prosecution appears to be trying to direct attention away from the true issues here by filing charges against the guy's wife?

So any time an associate of someone held for trial commits a crime and is charged it is because the prosecution is trying to direct attention away from the true issues?

Why would they do that? What motive and reason would they have?

Corey doesn't care. The trial is held in the court of public opinion or at an undetermined time in the future?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Yes. That's where this all started. Zimmerman told MOM. MOM told the court.

OK, so while I continue to think GZ is an idiot, and that his public credibility has taken a hit over this, it was actually GZ's team which notified the court. If you think about it, an argument could actually be made that shows integrity, that he decided to tell his attorney and come clean (though not as much integrity as if he'd been totally up-front in the first place). I'm not saying I'm making that argument , but it's am interesting counterpoint to those who now say GZ is a "proven liar" and appear to be in celebrations and think this proves that everything he's said is a lie.

 

[johnny karate]

I disagree, I think in the end this will be revealed as the petty trumped-up charge that it is.

I'm not going to argue with you on this issue any longer because, quite frankly, your arguments offend my intelligence.

So let's just put our money where our mouths are.

My position is that Zimmerman's wife will not be acquitted of this charge, nor will it be dismissed outright.

She will either be convicted, plead to a lesser charge, or have this charge dismissed as part of a plea agreement for her husband.

I assume your position is that she will be acquitted, or that the charge will be dropped outright.

So I propose a wager in which the loser must use an avatar of the winner's choosing for one month.

Agreed?

And by the way, this wager is open to all takers.

 

[Rare Truth]

Q: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?
A: None that I know of.

Q: And is--are you [sic] of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?
A: Um, not--not that I'm aware of.

More than $74,000 was sitting in her checking account at the time she said that.
Play the games all day long if you want. She committed perjury and of that there is NO DOUBT.