Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Maybe you're right. Then again...

... maybe you're wrong.

My opinion that the State did a poor job responding to the motion is wrong ? I guess maybe since Judge Nelson ruled against it. We would probably have to have a discussion about her consistency and her rulings to see if she is going down the same path as Judge Lester.

Zimmerman has already admitted to shooting and killing Martin.

He claims it was in self-defense and paints a pretty vivid and specific picture of how exactly that went down.

If the prosecution is able to take his story apart, and even prove significant parts of it to be untrue, all we're left with is a guy who shot and killed someone and then lied about how it happened.

Doesn't seem like much a leap to me from there to Murder 2.

It seems to me if the state could do all that, they wouldn't have had to wait so long to charge him. They wouldn't have had to go to the level of using his mother to "identify" him screaming, when all the references in the police reports recognize that it was GZ screaming.

We've been over this dozens of times. I don't recall any significant parts of his story proven untrue ?
Especially the important bits, where TM was on top of him, GZ claims he was fearful of great bodily harm and he shot TM ... that part backed up by witnesses.

I disagree. The focus is on Zimmerman and what he claimed happened. His self-defense claim relies on his story being believable. What DeeDee claims happened doesn't factor into that.

I'm amazed you think the witness on the phone with the TM up until the last few minutes is unimportant. What deedee claims happened most certainly factors into GZ story - because it basically corroborates it. It means GZ wasn't chasing him around with a gun, etc.

You'll have to ask the state. I have no idea what kind of machinations go on behind the scenes in a high-profile murder case.

I appreciate your responses and willingness to discuss the case - but this is a giant cop-out of an answer.
Not knowing what goes on behind the scenes doesn't appear to have stopped you from answering before. You've completely avoided addressing all of the issues I brought up regarding the witness who was on the phone with TM until a few minutes before he assaulted GZ.

By that same token, if the defense is so confident that the evidence shows Zimmerman acted in self-defense, why are they dragging their heels? Seems to me they'd want to get this over with as soon as possible in order to clear Zimmerman's good name.

It seems to you they would would want to rush to trial even if they are not fully prepared simply because they want to clear GZ name ? That seems a rather poor reason to me. If it were my name on the line, I would want to go to trial when I felt 100% prepared and not a minute sooner.

I'm not sure how that would work. The defense can only impugn what the prosecution presents as evidence. If DeeDee is really as weak a witness as various internet sleuths have determined, I'm almost certain the attorneys actually working the case would have also figured that out.

In short, if DeeDee isn't a good witness, the prosecution will have (and already has) plenty of time to suss that out. In which case, she won't be used, or only be used minimally.

And I will just reiterate what without DeeDees narrative about the man following him, etc, they have no evidence about what happened. We have covered it. Repeatedly.

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.
...
O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.

It's like the giant elephant in the room. The state had all of GZ statements and walk-throughs when they made these admissions. They can't undo them. And you all talk about how bad a witness GZ will be on the stand...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I believe the 2 huge contradictions between his re-enactment and his not911 call are going to be key. Also, both are so glaring that it can't be explained away with "normal memory loss".

Both are recorded, so it's a little hard to avoid.

I don't recall any huge contradictions. A link back to where these huge contradictions were previously discussed would be helpful.

Then you have other random stuff that we don't know for sure like that audio clip from the not911 call that many people, admittedly pro-M, are convinced is Z doing a "partial chamber check" on his gun. It seems to match up closely with a test "partial chamber check" on the same gun.

It completely ignores the fact that GZ had one ion the chamber and a full clip. It's grasping at straws, much like the ridiculous photoshopped image of the gun that somehow is supposed to align with the back of GZ head.

It's too bad that sound isn't easily explained by some mundane action that was talked about in statements to the police , such as hitting a flashlight to get it to start working ...

If that, or any other evidence, shows that Z was lying about not having the gun out at any point after he initially got out of the truck, it will be very bad for Z.

If only there was someone on the phone with TM who could report if TM saw that GZ had a gun out at some point while he was "chasing" him.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

None of that seems to address why the 18:30 call could not have been the one on the security tape ?

I'll give - I don't think I do...

Dan ? Are you going to explain the significance of your videos ?

 

[WildCat]

Well, I think we agree the state has no specific evidence regarding what exactly transpired from the time GZ ended his NEN call and the police showed, don't we ?

In broad terms, TM probably hit GZ one or more times, and they were grappling on the ground, and GZ shot TM when TM was on top of GZ. The witnesses and evidence appear to bear this out. I think we agree on those basics as well

I don't see how with just that, and over a year to review/practice/rehearse/whatever his testimony the state is going to convince a jury of six ( yes that was for you , FL has 6 person criminal juries ) that GZ is guilty of Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with GZ not being the sharpest pencil in the box.

Let's recall that the state did not charge GZ until after we found out about DeeDee.
"This young lady connects the dots," said Crump. "Arrest George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin in cold blood, today.
And she even played a role in the charging affadavit:
During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why

I think if it turns out that DeeDee doesn't testify, or she lied ... its going to look really bad for TM, and give jurors a lot of reasonable doubt, no matter how GZ performs on the stand.

Humor me - if DeeDee is so unimportant, why does the state appear to be stonewalling the defense regarding information about her ? Why did the state wait so long to give the defense evidence about the phone and its location ? Doesn't that all seem even a little bit hinky to you ? ABC reports this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...ance-video-george-zimmerman/story?id=16022897
The 16-year-old girl, who is only being identified as DeeDee, recounted the final moments of her conversation with Martin before the line went dead.
"When he saw the man behind him again he said this man is going to do something to him. And then he said this man is still behind him and I said run," she said.

Really, he said the man is going to do something to him ? I don't remember that in Crumps interview, do you ? Anyone ? You think ABC news didn't check her age, either ?

Seriously, there is definitely something hinky going on with her, and I think it's important to know what it is. Maybe if GZ is the star witness for state, DeeDee is the star witness for the defense ?

Dee Dee couldn't even tell the truth about her age, why should anyone believe anything she says?

 

[johnny karate]

My opinion that the State did a poor job responding to the motion is wrong ? I guess maybe since Judge Nelson ruled against it. We would probably have to have a discussion about her consistency and her rulings to see if she is going down the same path as Judge Lester.

Maybe. The point is your opinions don't always line up with reality.

However, I would love to read your opinions on how and why Judge Nelson is wrong.

It seems to me if the state could do all that, they wouldn't have had to wait so long to charge him. They wouldn't have had to go to the level of using his mother to "identify" him screaming, when all the references in the police reports recognize that it was GZ screaming.

If you say so. But it seems to me that the road to convicting George Zimmerman was a little more complex and convoluted than you're making it out, and it's not a particular issue I have any interest in unraveling.

We've been over this dozens of times. I don't recall any significant parts of his story proven untrue ?
Especially the important bits, where TM was on top of him, GZ claims he was fearful of great bodily harm and he shot TM ... that part backed up by witnesses.

There hasn't been a trial yet. I'm no legal expert, but I believe that's when the prosecution actually presents their case.

I'm amazed you think the witness on the phone with the TM up until the last few minutes is unimportant.

Probably because I think she isn't a very good witness.

What deedee claims happened most certainly factors into GZ story - because it basically corroborates it. It means GZ wasn't chasing him around with a gun, etc.

It only factors in if she is deemed a good witness and is used as such. Otherwise, what DeeDee claims is irrelevant.

I appreciate your responses and willingness to discuss the case - but this is a giant cop-out of an answer. Not knowing what goes on behind the scenes doesn't appear to have stopped you from answering before. You've completely avoided addressing all of the issues I brought up regarding the witness who was on the phone with TM until a few minutes before he assaulted GZ.

What you're seeing from me here is lack of interest. I don't think DeeDee is as important to the case as you seem to. You'll note I've never once mentioned her or her claims in all my arguments against Zimmerman. I'm sorry if you think it's a cop out, but I'm not going to discuss something just because you want me to.

It seems to you they would would want to rush to trial even if they are not fully prepared simply because they want to clear GZ name ? That seems a rather poor reason to me. If it were my name on the line, I would want to go to trial when I felt 100% prepared and not a minute sooner.

And there you have it. You see something strange where I don't, and I see something strange where you don't.

But what I'm not going to do is try to force you to continue discussing how the prosecution seems prepared but the defense doesn't. You apparently are not interested in the idea that the side that supposedly has no case is ready while the side that claims the evidence is on their side is expressing apprehension. And I respect that.

And I will just reiterate what without DeeDees narrative about the man following him, etc, they have no evidence about what happened. We have covered it. Repeatedly.

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.
...
O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.

It's like the giant elephant in the room. The state had all of GZ statements and walk-throughs when they made these admissions. They can't undo them. And you all talk about how bad a witness GZ will be on the stand...

First of all, because Gilbreath said he had no evidence at that time doesn't mean the state doesn't have any evidence now. The investigation isn't static. It's ongoing.

Secondly, I don't know why you think it's so crucial the state prove who started the altercation. Zimmerman isn't being charged with starting a fight. He's being charged with murder. And since Zimmerman has already admitted to shooting and killing Martin, their job is halfway done.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan ? Are you going to explain the significance of your videos ?

I did but that post seems to have gotten lost in the moderation. Those examples go to show when certain changes which I have discussed earlier were made at a certain store which I had previously claimed had not made those changes at a certain time in question.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Maybe. The point is your opinions don't always line up with reality.
However, I would love to read your opinions on how and why Judge Nelson is wrong.

Perhaps in the near future.

If you say so. But it seems to me that the road to convicting George Zimmerman was a little more complex and convoluted than you're making it out, and it's not a particular issue I have any interest in unraveling.

There hasn't been a trial yet. I'm no legal expert, but I believe that's when the prosecution actually presents their case.

How true ! But the beauty of the sunshine state with their sunshine laws is that we get to see all of their evidence before they get around to presenting their case. So, they can put lipstick on the pig when they present their case, but we've already seen the pig.

Probably because I think she isn't a very good witness.

It only factors in if she is deemed a good witness and is used as such. Otherwise, what DeeDee claims is irrelevant.

A good witness ... I'm not sure what you mean by that ? Good for the prosecution ?

What you're seeing from me here is lack of interest. I don't think DeeDee is as important to the case as you seem to. You'll note I've never once mentioned her or her claims in all my arguments against Zimmerman. I'm sorry if you think it's a cop out, but I'm not going to discuss something just because you want me to.

And there you have it. You see something strange where I don't, and I see something strange where you don't.

Fair enough.

But what I'm not going to do is try to force you to continue discussing how the prosecution seems prepared but the defense doesn't. You apparently are not interested in the idea that the side that supposedly has no case is ready while the side that claims the evidence is on their side is expressing apprehension. And I respect that.

The prosecution should have felt they had enough evidence at the time they filed the charging affidavit.

First of all, because Gilbreath said he had no evidence at that time doesn't mean the state doesn't have any evidence now. The investigation isn't static. It's ongoing.

So are you aware of any new evidence the state has they can use to prove GZ was not acting in self defense but instead murdered TM ? Because I'm not.

Secondly, I don't know why you think it's so crucial the state prove who started the altercation. Zimmerman isn't being charged with starting a fight. He's being charged with murder. And since Zimmerman has already admitted to shooting and killing Martin, their job is halfway done.

Half of proving murder is knowing who did the deed ?

Seriously - what evidence do you think the state has that proves GZ was not acting in self defense ? Feel free to just link back to a prior post that explains it, or whatever. Maybe we had a discussion and I missed it. It's a big thread.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I did but that post seems to have gotten lost in the moderation. Those examples go to show when certain changes which I have discussed earlier were made at a certain store which I had previously claimed had not made those changes at a certain time in question.

Thanks, Dan. I sort of understand.

 

[johnny karate]

How true ! But the beauty of the sunshine state with their sunshine laws is that we get to see all of their evidence before they get around to presenting their case. So, they can put lipstick on the pig when they present their case, but we've already seen the pig.

Opinions vary on the quality of the case that can be built from the available evidence. There have been pages and pages of discussion about what the evidence shows and what it doens't.

That you personally are unconvinced of the prosecution building a good case is not particulary compelling to me. I prefer to wait and see how things play out in the trial.

A good witness ... I'm not sure what you mean by that ? Good for the prosecution ?

Yes. If DeeDee is not a good witness for the prosecution, then the prosecution probably won't use her. It's as simple as that.

The prosecution should have felt they had enough evidence at the time they filed the charging affidavit.

Except that the standards are different for an affadavit than they are for a conviction. And as I said, the prosecution seems on schedule and ready to go. That tells me at least one or two of the people who attended law school prosecuting this case feel fairly confident about the merits of it.

So are you aware of any new evidence the state has they can use to prove GZ was not acting in self defense but instead murdered TM ? Because I'm not.

I haven't seen the prosecution present their evidence. Nor have I seen them examine and crossexamine witnesses. In short, I haven't seen them present their case. Once they do, we can revisit this question.

Half of proving murder is knowing who did the deed ?

Yes, half of prosecutiong a murder is getting the suspect to admit they did the killing. That part is done. Now all they have to do is dismantle his self-defense claim.

Seriously - what evidence do you think the state has that proves GZ was not acting in self defense ? Feel free to just link back to a prior post that explains it, or whatever. Maybe we had a discussion and I missed it. It's a big thread.

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that a trial begins and ends with the static examination of evidence. For instance, do you know what any of the witnesses are going to say once they are on the stand? Me neither. But they put people on the stand to testify during trials, so I'm guessing that part might be important, too.

 

[This is The End]

But the beauty of the sunshine state with their sunshine laws is that we get to see all of their evidence before they get around to presenting their case.

I'm not quite sure it is as all inclusive as you seem to imply...

Are you implying that we won't see anything new at the trial at all?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Opinions vary on the quality of the case that can be built from the available evidence. There have been pages and pages of discussion about what the evidence shows and what it doens't.

That you personally are unconvinced of the prosecution building a good case is not particulary compelling to me. I prefer to wait and see how things play out in the trial.

I assumed from all the discussion that you had an opinion on the strength of the prosecutions case. And while I agree a simple opinion of 'he's guilty' or 'he's not guilty' isn't particularly compelling, opinions based on all the evidence we have been discussing for 100's of pages might be worthwhile.

Yes. If DeeDee is not a good witness for the prosecution, then the prosecution probably won't use her. It's as simple as that.

Well, yes ... that's pretty obvious. I thought perhaps you meant not good as in 'unreliable' or something else. The possibility remains that she may be a good witness ... for the defense.

Except that the standards are different for an affadavit than they are for a conviction. And as I said, the prosecution seems on schedule and ready to go. That tells me at least one or two of the people who attended law school prosecuting this case feel fairly confident about the merits of it.

I haven't seen the prosecution present their evidence. Nor have I seen them examine and crossexamine witnesses. In short, I haven't seen them present their case. Once they do, we can revisit this question.

But you have seen their evidence, aside from the deposition of the witnesses. And since there were no witnesses to the altercation ... I don't see how presentation will change those material facts.

Yes, half of prosecutiong a murder is getting the suspect to admit they did the killing. That part is done. Now all they have to do is dismantle his self-defense claim.

Perhaps it is half the work in a case where the suspect doesn't stand at the scene and admit he shot the alleged victim. And if by dismantle you mean provide evidence he actually murdered TM, and didn't act in self defense. It's not enough to just cast doubt on his self defense claim.

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that a trial begins and ends with the static examination of evidence. For instance, do you know what any of the witnesses are going to say once they are on the stand? Me neither. But they put people on the stand to testify during trials, so I'm guessing that part might be important, too.

It might be, it might not, since none of those people saw what occurred, just the aftermath. We have seen and/or heard the witness statements. If they materially change their story in deposition, we'll hear about that, too. So I guess I don't agree that the witnesses will be terribly important, except perhaps in testifying to character on both sides.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not quite sure it is as all inclusive as you seem to imply...

Are you implying that we won't see anything new at the trial at all?

No, I am not implying we won't see anything new. We will see all the redacted evidence, that will be new. Phone numbers, records, etc.

But, as quadraginta pointed out upthread:

The act of accepting discovery from the prosecution "triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant" to share everything they have any intention of using in the trial,

So we have seen the witness lists, and the evidence that was not redacted.

We have not heard the 'witnesses' depositions - so it's possible there may be something in there, I guess.

But generally speaking, I am not aware of what other new things we would see.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

new motions from MOM

Subpoena for TMs family to produce any audio recordings of TM in the last 3 years.

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/subpeonas_dt_martins_fultons.pdf

and from witness 8:

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/motion_std_witness_8.pdf

I guess they are going to have their own experts rule out TM as the screamer.

Also, demand for video from sams, kohls, and lake edge apts, as they claim the video that was given to them by FDLE was blank (an honest mistake no doubt):

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/discovery_demand_3_videos.pdf

 

[Unabogie]

Subpoena for TMs family to produce any audio recordings of TM in the last 3 years.

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/subpeonas_dt_martins_fultons.pdf

and from witness 8:

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/motion_std_witness_8.pdf

I guess they are going to have their own experts rule out TM as the screamer.

That's cute. I remember quite a bit of time spent on the discussion of "woo" when it came to the two guys who ruled out George as the screamer.

No doubt when the defense expert gets up there we'll see no end to his defenses and newly minted audio experts will arrive to explain why one guy is credible but that other dude is full of woo.

I will ask this, though. If the state has no recordings of Trayvon in their possession, does George really have the right to compel the Martin family to dig them up and produce them?

I thought discovery only applied to the state, not to private citizens?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's cute. I remember quite a bit of time spent on the discussion of "woo" when it came to the two guys who ruled out George as the screamer.

Sure, it will still be 'woo'. But if the defense has an indication that the state may present some expert witness to claim that GZ can't be ruled out ... it makes sense to have audio of TM and your own expert to claim TM can't be ruled out either, doesn't it ?

No doubt when the defense expert gets up there we'll see no end to his defenses and newly minted audio experts will arrive to explain why one guy is credible but that other dude is full of woo.

Why don't you wait until someone actually does that instead of flailing at strawmen.

I will ask this, though. If the state has no recordings of Trayvon in their possession, does George really have the right to compel the Martin family to dig them up and produce them?

Well, clearly MOM thinks he has the right to serve a subpoena them for evidence. I suppose the judge has to rule on it.

I thought discovery only applied to the state, not to private citizens?

It's a subpoena for evidence. To disallow a defendant to gather evidence in his defense would be rather crappy, no ?

 

[Unabogie]

Well, clearly MOM thinks he has the right to serve a subpoena them for evidence. I suppose the judge has to rule on it.

It's a subpoena for evidence. To disallow a defendant to gather evidence in his defense would be rather crappy, no ?

But I thought that the discovery rule applied to evidence the prosecution plans to use as evidence at the trial. If they don't have this evidence, I don't see how a court can compel the family of the murder victim to jump through hoops to help the man who murdered their child.

Could Richard Allen Davies have compelled the Klaus family to dig up photos of Polly and provide them to the defense? Seems bizarre.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But I thought that the discovery rule applied to evidence the prosecution plans to use as evidence at the trial. If they don't have this evidence, I don't see how a court can compel the family of the murder victim to jump through hoops to help the man who murdered their child.

Could Richard Allen Davies have compelled the Klaus family to dig up photos of Polly and provide them to the defense? Seems bizarre.

That's why he had to file a subpoena...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena+duces+tecum

The judge then rules whether the family should produce the audio or not.

 

[Unabogie]

That's why he had to file a subpoena...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena+duces+tecum

The judge then rules whether the family should produce the audio or not.

Since this isn't a request to the state for their evidence, I bet Nelson rejects it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Since this isn't a request to the state for their evidence, I bet Nelson rejects it.

Why ? I don't see why she would reject it. Is there some legal reason you think she should reject it ?

 

[johnny karate]

I assumed from all the discussion that you had an opinion on the strength of the prosecutions case. And while I agree a simple opinion of 'he's guilty' or 'he's not guilty' isn't particularly compelling, opinions based on all the evidence we have been discussing for 100's of pages might be worthwhile.

How can I have an opinion of something that hasn't been presented yet?

When the prosecution actually makes their case, I'll be more than happy to weigh in on its strength.

Well, yes ... that's pretty obvious. I thought perhaps you meant not good as in 'unreliable' or something else. The possibility remains that she may be a good witness ... for the defense.

No, I meant "not good" as in "unreliable". And if she's unreliable for the prosecution, she's just as unreliable for the defense.

But you have seen their evidence, aside from the deposition of the witnesses. And since there were no witnesses to the altercation ... I don't see how presentation will change those material facts.

Then you should probably notify the Attorney General's office and let them know we should just go ahead and do away with trials since nothing of much importance happens during them.

Perhaps it is half the work in a case where the suspect doesn't stand at the scene and admit he shot the alleged victim. And if by dismantle you mean provide evidence he actually murdered TM, and didn't act in self defense. It's not enough to just cast doubt on his self defense claim.

The only thing that separates Zimmerman simply killing Martin and unlawfully murdering him is his self-defnse claim. If that goes away, murder is all that is left.

It might be, it might not, since none of those people saw what occurred, just the aftermath. We have seen and/or heard the witness statements. If they materially change their story in deposition, we'll hear about that, too. So I guess I don't agree that the witnesses will be terribly important, except perhaps in testifying to character on both sides.

Yes, we disagree on the importance of witnesses, and apparently of trials themselves.

I prefer to keep an open mind and render my opinion once both sides have been allowed to present their cases rather than making up my mind about how the trial is going to end up before it even starts.