Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Unabogie]

Here is a quote from that article that passes for reporting nowadays:

"He fatally shot Trayvon, an unarmed black 17-year-old, Feb. 26 as the Miami Gardens teenager was walking back from a 7-Eleven."

Which of those words are false?

1. He fatally shot him: true
2. Trayvon was 17 years old: true
3. Trayvon was black: true
4. He was walking back from the 7-11: true

The only gripe I'll assume you have is that the article didn't give George's side of the story?

But wait, they did.

Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense.

That seems to cover things.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Good comment from that article:



Yeah, I'd agree with this completely. It could be that those of us assuming that there's more evidence are terribly wrong and that George will appear to have been justified in killing Trayvon.

But wow, that's a lot of witnesses, most of them in law enforcement. When the DA hinted at George telling different versions to different people, this is what they were getting at.

Should be interesting when the docs are released.

As I have said before, I don't believe it would be possible for GZ, to re-tell his story to LEOs multiple times without some inconsistencies.

I would like some sort of confirmation/additional explanation on if the SAO is required to turn over everything they looked at, whether it was inclupatory, exculpatory, or indifferent.

 

[Rare Truth]

I have to wonder...is the conservative persecution complex genetic, or just a well-honed learned trait...?

 

[Unabogie]

As I have said before, I don't believe it would be possible for GZ, to re-tell his story to LEOs multiple times without some inconsistencies.

I would like some sort of confirmation/additional explanation on if the SAO is required to turn over everything they looked at, whether it was inclupatory, exculpatory, or indifferent.

They do, because it's not up to the state to decide what is exculpatory. Otherwise a DA could just deem everything "indifferent' in order to cover up evidence that could help a defendant. That's why the rules usually say they have to provide it all and let the other side sort it out.

ETA: Here's a link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

And one more:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16

 

[TheL8Elvis]

They do, because it's not up to the state to decide what is exculpatory. Otherwise a DA could just deem everything "indifferent' in order to cover up evidence that could help a defendant. That's why the rules usually say they have to provide it all and let the other side sort it out.

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

Just wondering how much of this new discovery is truly going to be relevant. Guess we'll know in a few weeks.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I just want to point out to those of you who keep harping on about the Tree House site that other than (perhaps) GWCarver I don't think anyone has given it any credence or finds it anything other than laughable. But you keep harping on about that endlessly, in order to play guilt by association, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

Just wondering how much of this new discovery is truly going to be relevant. Guess we'l know in a few weeks.

Right. I don't think you can glean anything from this. You can get a better idea if they release a witness list (again, as part of discovery). The rules also say you can't have "surprise" witnesses. Both sides will know what the other side has, for the most part.

 

[BenBurch]

I have to wonder...is the conservative persecution complex genetic, or just a well-honed learned trait...?

It's a mental illness.

 

[johnny karate]

I just want to point out to those of you who keep harping on about the Tree House site that other than (perhaps) GWCarver I don't think anyone has given it any credence or finds it anything other than laughable. But you keep harping on about that endlessly, in order to play guilt by association, if it makes you feel better.

Everyone clear on that? No more saying bad things about a wingnut website that has been repeatedly linked in this thread because it makes some people feel bad about being on the same side of the argument as those wingnuts.

 

[GWCarver]

I just want to point out to those of you who keep harping on about the Tree House site that other than (perhaps) GWCarver I don't think anyone has given it any credence or finds it anything other than laughable. But you keep harping on about that endlessly, in order to play guilt by association, if it makes you feel better.

The latest link I put up, which was to a transcript of de la Rionda's interview with DeeDee, didn't come from the Treehouse. Mike McDaniel just mentioned it in his prologue, and that supposedly discredited it.

I personally think that good information can be gained from all sorts of sources - even the New York Times - as long as one maintains a healthy amount of skepticism.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Which of those words are false?

1. He fatally shot him: true
2. Trayvon was 17 years old: true
3. Trayvon was black: true
4. He was walking back from the 7-11: true

The only gripe I'll assume you have is that the article didn't give George's side of the story?

But wait, they did.

That seems to cover things.

So you'd also be OK with this, right?

"George Zimmerman says he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Drug tests revealed Martin to be a marijuana user. Martin has been suspended from school multiple times and was also caught at school in possession of screwdrivers which are frequently used as burglary tools, and women's jewelry that was suspected to be stolen".

"Martin's family says he is being unfairly portrayed."

After all, each of the statements above is true.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have to wonder...is the conservative persecution complex genetic, or just a well-honed learned trait...?

That sounds somewhat like an attack on the arguer and not the argument, though.

 

[Amazer]

Here is a transcript of DeeDee's interview with de la Rionda, complete with commentary. Providing the author is correct in his analysis, if the state calls DeeDee, Bernie can be called by the defense to explain his interviewing technique. So, it is possible Bernie could be O'Mara's star witness.

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpr...-case-update-11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/

I sincerely doubt that someone who thinks that Cashill is a fine writer and researcher can be correct in his analysis.

 

[GWCarver]

I sincerely doubt that someone who thinks that Cashill is a fine writer and researcher can be correct in his analysis.

Well, out of the whole page, here is what I considered to be important. If it isn't accurate, please feel free to point out any errors.

"One major issue is that—unlike TV and the movies would have us believe—prosecutors NEVER interview suspects. They commonly meet witnesses only just before a trial begins, and then, only to introduce themselves and tell the witness when they can expect to testify and to put them at ease. They do not discuss the details of testimony with witnesses.

This is so for two primary reasons:

(1) If a prosecutor interviews a suspect or witness, they have made themselves a witness. The defense can call them to the stand to testify about their interview. This is what those involved in the criminal justice system call: bad.

(2) It is important that the testimony of a witness be untainted. No prosecutor wants to open themselves to the charge of tampering with a witness—which is a crime—or in any way trying to influence their testimony. Defense lawyers routinely ask witnesses about this on the stand, and at the slightest hint of influence, raise a stink, which judges and juries tend to take very seriously.

Interviews are done by police officers. If a prosecutor wants to clarify a given issue, or obtain additional information, they have this done by a detective who writes a supplementary report containing that information. Prosecutors do not do it themselves."

 

[GWCarver]

Jeralyn says those listed in category "C" on the discovery list released today won't be called as witnesses.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/15/141756/270

 

[Cylinder]

State's Redacted Second Supplemental Discovery

Statements from W23 - W28
FDLE Statements
SCDC Statements (regarding jail call records)
Florida Alcohol Beverage and Tobacco Statements
FBI Reports from witness interviews (DOJ had 10 Special Agents taking statements)
FLDE Reports from statements taken
SAO memos from interviews
Search warrants for telephone records
M&J Bank surveillance
Zimmerman's CCP Application
Aerial photos of crime scene
Total Station crime report and diagram
Crime scene sketch and key
etc..

 

[Unabogie]

Well, out of the whole page, here is what I considered to be important. If it isn't accurate, please feel free to point out any errors.

"One major issue is that—unlike TV and the movies would have us believe—prosecutors NEVER interview suspects. They commonly meet witnesses only just before a trial begins, and then, only to introduce themselves and tell the witness when they can expect to testify and to put them at ease. They do not discuss the details of testimony with witnesses.

This is so for two primary reasons:

(1) If a prosecutor interviews a suspect or witness, they have made themselves a witness. The defense can call them to the stand to testify about their interview. This is what those involved in the criminal justice system call: bad.

(2) It is important that the testimony of a witness be untainted. No prosecutor wants to open themselves to the charge of tampering with a witness—which is a crime—or in any way trying to influence their testimony. Defense lawyers routinely ask witnesses about this on the stand, and at the slightest hint of influence, raise a stink, which judges and juries tend to take very seriously.

Interviews are done by police officers. If a prosecutor wants to clarify a given issue, or obtain additional information, they have this done by a detective who writes a supplementary report containing that information. Prosecutors do not do it themselves."

1) Evidence?

2) Evidence?

I highly doubt that prosecutors never interview their witnesses prior to meeting them at the trial for the first time. In fact, that seems so ludicrous I don't know why anyone would take it seriously. But I'm open to evidence for that illogical contention. Do you have any?

 

[Rare Truth]

Well, out of the whole page, here is what I considered to be important. If it isn't accurate, please feel free to point out any errors.

"One major issue is that—unlike TV and the movies would have us believe—prosecutors NEVER interview suspects. They commonly meet witnesses only just before a trial begins, and then, only to introduce themselves and tell the witness when they can expect to testify and to put them at ease. They do not discuss the details of testimony with witnesses.

This is so for two primary reasons:

(1) If a prosecutor interviews a suspect or witness, they have made themselves a witness. The defense can call them to the stand to testify about their interview. This is what those involved in the criminal justice system call: bad.

(2) It is important that the testimony of a witness be untainted. No prosecutor wants to open themselves to the charge of tampering with a witness—which is a crime—or in any way trying to influence their testimony. Defense lawyers routinely ask witnesses about this on the stand, and at the slightest hint of influence, raise a stink, which judges and juries tend to take very seriously.

Interviews are done by police officers. If a prosecutor wants to clarify a given issue, or obtain additional information, they have this done by a detective who writes a supplementary report containing that information. Prosecutors do not do it themselves."

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The high school English teacher you cite, who has a great fondness for the scumbuckets at the Treehouse is, to put it mildly, off his rocker.

 

[GWCarver]

1) Evidence?

2) Evidence?

I highly doubt that prosecutors never interview their witnesses prior to meeting them at the trial for the first time. In fact, that seems so ludicrous I don't know why anyone would take it seriously. But I'm open to evidence for that illogical contention. Do you have any?

The answer is, I'm not sure. Here is a part of a federal guideline for prosecutors, which seems to say if they have an "agent" present - and Bernie had two - that could prevent them from becoming a witness if questions arise about the interview.

"Whenever possible, prosecutors should not conduct an interview without an agent present to avoid the risk of making themselves a witness to a statement and being disqualified from handling the case if the statement becomes an issue. If exigent circumstances make it impossible to secure the presence of an agent during an interview, prosecutors should try to have another office employee present."

http://www.justice.gov/dag/discovery-guidance.html

However, it isn't clear to me how anyone but the person doing the interview himself could testify as to the quality or legality of a particular line of his own questioning. I'll have to look around some more.

 

[Unabogie]

The answer is, I'm not sure. Here is a part of a federal guideline for prosecutors, which seems to say if they have an "agent" present - and Bernie had two - that could prevent them from becoming a witness if questions arise about the interview.

"Whenever possible, prosecutors should not conduct an interview without an agent present to avoid the risk of making themselves a witness to a statement and being disqualified from handling the case if the statement becomes an issue. If exigent circumstances make it impossible to secure the presence of an agent during an interview, prosecutors should try to have another office employee present."

http://www.justice.gov/dag/discovery-guidance.html

However, it isn't clear to me how anyone but the person doing the interview himself could testify as to the quality or legality of a particular line of his own questioning. I'll have to look around some more.

They are just saying that a prosecutor shouldn't conduct a witness interview without someone else there to testify to that statement, since they'll need someone to say "Yeah, I was there, and the perp said what he's on tape saying". And that shouldn't be himself.

That's a far cry from what these guys claimed, and again, this wasn't a secret interview. We can hear it for ourselves. I wouldn't be surprised if it were filmed as well. I highly doubt that prosecutors don't interview the witnesses prior to trial. That's just dumb.