Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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)
etc..

It's just great what press coverage can get you, isn't it? How many hundreds of other people were killed across the country during this time period who's families are probably lucky to have a one or two detectives spending a small percentage of their time on their loved ones case. But create enough of a media circus, and you've got 10 special agents taking statements, even when they was already an investigation going on.

 

[bynmdsue]

It's just great what press coverage can get you, isn't it? How many hundreds of other people were killed across the country during this time period who's families are probably lucky to have a one or two detectives spending a small percentage of their time on their loved ones case. But create enough of a media circus, and you've got 10 special agents taking statements, even when they was already an investigation going on.

Well, when a white man shoots a black boy in the back of the head and claims self-defense...

At least that what Jesse Jackson told me...

 

[This is The End]

We can hear it for ourselves.

Just the fact that the interview was recorded may qualify for an "agent" being present.

 

[Cylinder]

Regarding Mr. Zimmerman’s Phone Conversations While in Jail

On Monday, we will be filing a motion to seek a clarification from the Court about the order regarding Mr. Zimmerman’s phone conversations while in jail. Our motion will contend that the majority of the phone calls are personal and irrelevant to the charges against Mr. Zimmerman or issues surrounding the next bond hearing. Moreover, the public release of these phone calls could jeopardize the privacy of friends and family of Mr. Zimmerman who are unrelated to the case. We will not be objecting to the release of phone calls that include conversations relevant to the the bond hearing or the charges Mr. Zimmerman faces.

 

[Cylinder]

Didn't the guy have a Sunday school in his house for minority kids?

Khaled Akkawi to Feds when asked about Zimmerman's racial veiws

Now we know why Akkawi is on the prosecution's C-list of witnesses that will not be called at trial.

 

[Rare Truth]

Der. He didn't know GZ.

 

[GWCarver]

Just the fact that the interview was recorded may qualify for an "agent" being present.

The government article I linked mentions agents and prosecutors and recordings separately. After reading around a bit, this is all immensely complicated. Much of the data involving prosecutors and agents has to do with the government not having to record interviews with witnesses, and we know this interview was recorded. (Make that some part of the interview was recorded. We don't know how long they were talking before the recording started. That part would be where the agents fit in.) The next time I get a chance, I'm going to look specifically at Florida and find out if it has any mandatory recording laws.

With regard to a prosecutor interviewing witnesses, it seems logical that someone attached to the prosecutor's office, or the prosecutor him/herself, would have to review witness statements before a trial. After all, a year or two may have elapsed since the original interviews, and they don't want to be asking questions if the possibility exists the answer has changed. There wouldn't be as much danger for a prosecutor to engage in this kind of interview because it would be more verification than investigation. If that is the case, it would mean Una<cough><cough> may have a point.

I put a question in to Mike at the web site that originated the article about that, and hopefully I will hear back from him.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

Yep. Have you ever seen anyone start a chess game without having all of their pieces on the board? Doesn't mean that every single one of them will be used... or used as planned.

 

[bookworm]

Khaled Akkawi to Feds when asked about Zimmerman's racial veiws

Now we know why Akkawi is on the prosecution's C-list of witnesses that will not be called at trial.

The defense could still call any of these witnesses, couldn't they?

 

[Cylinder]

The defense could still call any of these witnesses, couldn't they?

Yes - though it's doubtful because much of what he would testify to would be hearsay.

I wouldn't be suprised to hear testimony from Zimmerman's firearm instructor, the range master from his club (though it seems like he used a McShooting Range) and his shooting buddies.

 

[GWCarver]

The government article I linked mentions agents and prosecutors and recordings separately. After reading around a bit, this is all immensely complicated. Much of the data involving prosecutors and agents has to do with the government not having to record interviews with witnesses, and we know this interview was recorded. (Make that some part of the interview was recorded. We don't know how long they were talking before the recording started. That part would be where the agents fit in.) The next time I get a chance, I'm going to look specifically at Florida and find out if it has any mandatory recording laws.

With regard to a prosecutor interviewing witnesses, it seems logical that someone attached to the prosecutor's office, or the prosecutor him/herself, would have to review witness statements before a trial. After all, a year or two may have elapsed since the original interviews, and they don't want to be asking questions if the possibility exists the answer has changed. There wouldn't be as much danger for a prosecutor to engage in this kind of interview because it would be more verification than investigation. If that is the case, it would mean Una<cough><cough> may have a point.

I put a question in to Mike at the web site that originated the article about that, and hopefully I will hear back from him.

Here is the answer from Mike at his website to rain on my speculation parade above:

Dear GWCarver:

In my experience, it’s something they very much avoid for the reasons I’ve suggested. I’ve often sat in on meetings with prosecutors, local, state and federal, as they met witnesses for the first time on the day they would testify (these witnesses were people I interviewed). In every case, if they discussed their testimony at all, it might be to ask them a very general question such as whether their testimony would in any way differ from what they told the police. Most don’t go that far. The merely introduce themselves, ask if the witness has any questions about the process, tell them they’ll be asking them about what they’ve said in their statements, and tell them at about what time they expect to need them to testify.

I cannot say that it never happens, but again, for the reasons I’ve listed, it’s a very bad idea and quite unprofessional.

Great question, and I hope this is helpful.

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpr...11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/#comment-1440

I'll continue looking around, you know - trust but verify.

Oh, Unabogie, prosecutors do interview "cooperating witnesses". There is a ton of information about this here, at the fordham.edu website:

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...Q#search="do prosecutors interview witnesses"

eta: Mike McDaniel is a former police officer, detective, and SWAT operator, and is now a high school English teacher.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/author/mikemcdaniel/

 

[Freddy]

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.

Pretty much. A lawyer can be disqualified from a case if he or she is (or becomes) an indispensable witness. As long as someone else is present, the prosecutor would not be indispensable as a witness, because another witness is there to testify to the same thing (which is really nothing more than to authenticate the recording and lay the proper foundation for its introduction into evidence). That prevents the prosecution from potentially having to transfer the case to another prosecutor.

And you are also correct that prosecutors prep their witnesses, as all trial lawyers do. Not to do so would be malpractice. There is a line between witness prep and improper coaching, of course, and any lawyer, including prosecutors, can face discipline for coaching a witness. Improper coaching is also often counter-productive, and it is easily sniffed out if done crudely.

 

[Nessie]

I am new here, but have been reading up on this case for a while. The main issue for me is that this is yet another example of an inappropriate DGU.

 

[crimresearch]

Yes - though it's doubtful because much of what he would testify to would be hearsay.

I wouldn't be suprised to hear testimony from Zimmerman's firearm instructor, the range master from his club (though it seems like he used a McShooting Range) and his shooting buddies.

'So Mr. Shackleford... May I call you Rusty? So Rusty, in your experience, what can you tell us about the defendant's accuracy with a pistol at near contact range?'

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

After all, each of the statements above is true.

I must point out a few key differences.

The description of TM in the first example is specific to the immediate events, the second example are of details about TM that are only relevant if he was actually suspected of a crime related to GZ's pursuit of TM. Is there evidence TM was casing a condo? Then the screwdriver and jewelry might be relevant. But he wasn't. Not one thing about TM's actions support GZ's initial behavior.

If you think it was relevant to TM's possible fighting back response to GZ, it isn't. Smoking pot and petty burglary have no relevance to 'thuggish' behavior without adding the stereotyping of young black men.

 

[Unabogie]

Pretty much. A lawyer can be disqualified from a case if he or she is (or becomes) an indispensable witness. As long as someone else is present, the prosecutor would not be indispensable as a witness, because another witness is there to testify to the same thing (which is really nothing more than to authenticate the recording and lay the proper foundation for its introduction into evidence). That prevents the prosecution from potentially having to transfer the case to another prosecutor.

And you are also correct that prosecutors prep their witnesses, as all trial lawyers do. Not to do so would be malpractice. There is a line between witness prep and improper coaching, of course, and any lawyer, including prosecutors, can face discipline for coaching a witness. Improper coaching is also often counter-productive, and it is easily sniffed out if done crudely.

Thank you. I gleaned as much watching Boston Legal, but we all know how Denny Crane can't be trusted.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I must point out a few key differences.

The description of TM in the first example is specific to the immediate events, the second example are of details about TM that are only relevant if he was actually suspected of a crime related to GZ's pursuit of TM. Is there evidence TM was casing a condo? Then the screwdriver and jewelry might be relevant. But he wasn't. Not one thing about TM's actions support GZ's initial behavior.

If you think it was relevant to TM's possible fighting back response to GZ, it isn't. Smoking pot and petty burglary have no relevance to 'thuggish' behavior without adding the stereotyping of young black men.

I never suggested any of the things in my imaginary post were or weren't relevant. I was simply pointing out that just because each item in an article is "factual" doesn't mean it's not also presenting a narrative, and perhaps a biased narrative at that.

Here's a simple example. I think a more objective narrative not meant to inject bias might read something like "TM was walking home from the 7/11 when he and GZ got into an altercation and GZ shot and killed TM. The prosecution has charged GZ with 2nd degree murder. GZ claims he shot TM in self-defense as he was being beaten".

When most narratives instead say something like "TM was walking home from 7/11 when he was shot and killed by GZ" and then throw in a single acknowledgement at the end that GZ claims it was self-defense, they are presenting a narrative that is skewed in one direction. I'll grant you that even my example above could be looked upon as skewed.

Now I'm not even claiming that the original example is horrible, nor especially unfair. I'm also not necessarily a believer in always telling "both sides of every story" anyhow, for instance I don't believe that global warming deniers should be presented as if they are on equal footing with global warming scientists. My point was that the story Uniboogie responded to did indeed have a subtle narrative to it, or at the least could be interpreted to have one, and he didn't see it as biased it because it told the narrative he embraces, that each of the items were "facts" as he claims did not negate that. Hopefully the distinction I am making makes sense.

 

[johnny karate]

I must point out a few key differences.

The description of TM in the first example is specific to the immediate events, the second example are of details about TM that are only relevant if he was actually suspected of a crime related to GZ's pursuit of TM. Is there evidence TM was casing a condo? Then the screwdriver and jewelry might be relevant. But he wasn't. Not one thing about TM's actions support GZ's initial behavior.

If you think it was relevant to TM's possible fighting back response to GZ, it isn't. Smoking pot and petty burglary have no relevance to 'thuggish' behavior without adding the stereotyping of young black men.

I couldn't be bothered to respond to that nonsense troll post, but you are pretty much spot on.

What I find amusing is that at this point in the game, I would think the last thing anyone defending a guy who assaults cops and orchestrates asinine attempts to defraud the court would want to do is bring up issues of character.

 

[Noztradamus]

I am new here, but have been reading up on this case for a while. The main issue for me is that this is yet another example of an inappropriate DGU.

Really, you have others?

Let me put it this way: Of George had simply seen Travyon walking by on the side of the road, stopped his truck and shot him, that would be unkind, and this case would be judged one way. If, however, Trayvon had come up to the window of George's car, reached in and started to pound George, the case would be judged another way.

Most people already here agree that the actual incident falls somewhere between, and this is the reason we are discussing exactly where in between

If you have some perspective as to where in between, welcome. If you don't think it falls into the vague area, you are in the wrong place, and 341 pages of discussion support me on that

(That it has gone on for 340 pages without conclusion is due to the fact that people not me are biased morons blinded by their prejudices )

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I just wanna know what "DGU" is.