• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
The FBI gave the state copies of their internal paperwork?

Why?

And how could the defense possibly know that?

You should actually go back and read the document I linked to:
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1212/amended_demand_for_specific_discovery_fbi.pdf

Although it may say 'internal paperwork' on there somewhere, it is a list of many things the FBI gave the state and or the Sanford police department.

You can keep trying to drag this particular issue down the rabbit hole, but the bottom line is the defense requested documents that the state didn't provide. When MOM asked the judge to enforce her ruling, she apparently thought that meant she should could file an order forcing the FBI to turn over their case file. :rolleyes:

You can keep on pretending to not understand, or keep trying to make it somehow MOMs fault if it makes you feel better.
 
Although it may say 'internal paperwork' on there somewhere, it is a list of many things the FBI gave the state and or the Sanford police department.

How did O'Mara know what the FBI gave the state or the Sanford police?

You can keep on pretending to not understand, or keep trying to make it somehow MOMs fault if it makes you feel better.

As someone who so recently made an irrational accusation that O'Mara engaged in unethical and illegal behavior, you might want to dial down the snarkiness.
 
Last edited:
No, there you go again. That's not the argument I made. At all.

Yes it is. You called it a data point. It isn't. At best it's a red flag to question a story, but it isn't a part that can be considered good evidence or a 'data point'.
 
Yes it is. You called it a data point. It isn't. At best it's a red flag to question a story, but it isn't a part that can be considered good evidence or a 'data point'.

"Data point" just means a piece of information, so I have no idea what you are on about.
 
You should actually go back and read the document I linked to:
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1212/amended_demand_for_specific_discovery_fbi.pdf

Although it may say 'internal paperwork' on there somewhere, it is a list of many things the FBI gave the state and or the Sanford police department.

You can keep trying to drag this particular issue down the rabbit hole, but the bottom line is the defense requested documents that the state didn't provide. When MOM asked the judge to enforce her ruling, she apparently thought that meant she should could file an order forcing the FBI to turn over their case file. :rolleyes:

You can keep on pretending to not understand, or keep trying to make it somehow MOMs fault if it makes you feel better.

That link doesn't work.
 
An informal poll (apologies if this has been covered before):

Who do you think was screaming help on the 911 call and how does that play into your evaluation of the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman? We don't know for sure, so feel free to say who you think was most likely the one screaming for help.

If you think George is guilty (more or less), would knowing that George was the one screaming for help change your mind?

If you think George is innocent (more or less), would knowing that Trayvon was the one screaming for help change your mind?

I suspect that it was Trayvon screaming for help, due to the fact that the scream cuts off immediately upon the gunshot, while George claims that he thought he missed. I would not b e at all shocked to learn that it was proven to be George screaming, however.

It should be obvious, but it doesn't have much bearing on what I think about the matter.
 
I don't agree that the evidence shows he chased Martin at all. I don't find DeeDee more believable either. I don't see any evidence at all that indicates who started an altercation and the available evidence and witness statements that show how it ended up support Z's version. Do I think he embellished what was said between the two? Yes, I think he probably did. I also think Martin had the opportunity to get home if he was worried about Z's actions. That tells me that either he wasn't worried or he was interested in a confrontation.

Okay, let's do this thoroughly, using Zimmerman's reenactment, and his police call.

In the first couple of minutes of the reenactment, Zimmerman describes that Martin was walking slowly. Note that at 1:00 in this video, Zimmerman claims that Martin stops walking, and looks around at the edge of the road. But we can see that there's no sidewalk on the side of the street where Martin is, and a sidewalk on the other side - and that Zimmerman is driving towards him. It seems likely to me that Martin was simply trying to cross the street, and waiting for Zimmerman to pass. Zimmerman also states "I had never seen him before", which indicates that he got a decent look at him - and thus knew his skin color when he called the police.

At 2:20 in his reenactment, Zimmerman claims that Martin walked past him (and in front of his car, indicating that Martin did cross the street), and that Martin was looking at him. This correlates well with the section beginning at 0:50 in Zimmerman's police call, where he claims that Martin is "staring at [him]", "and affirms that Martin is "by the clubhouse".

2:35 in his reenactment is where things start to go off the rails. Here, Zimmerman claims that the dispatcher asks him where Martin went, and to please move in order to find him. This does not occur in his police recording. Instead, the dispatch asks Martin to tell him if Martin does anything, and that he has officers on the way. Roughly a minute later, Zimmerman begins giving instructions on how the police can find them - first stating that they should make a left immediately upon entering, and then stating that they should go straight. This would make sense if Martin had turned the corner while Zimmerman was giving directions - but it also gives reason to believe that Zimmerman is following Martin in his car.

Beginning at roughly 3:30 in the reenactment, Zimmerman states that he pulls up near the sidewalk at the T- Junction, that he sees Martin look back at him, that Martin goes behind the houses, but then walks back, and circles his car. This is both missing from the police call, and absurd, as Martin could not have possibly covered the required distance in the amount of time covered by the police call, while "casually walking" (realistically, Martin would actually be at the corner of the westmost end of Twin Trees when he began running). Also, people don't circle cars. Note also, that this is where Zimmerman says that Martin "had his hand in his waistband". So he is likely conflating Martin walking by him at the clubhouse, with this invented event.

From 4:00 to 4:40 of the reenactment, Zimmerman claims that the dispatch asks, multiple times for an address or for directions to get to him. This is presumably immediately after Trayvon runs off, and he uses this to explain that the need of an address is why he got out of a car. In the police call, this does not happen, and the only thing that the dispatcher says before Zimmerman opens his car door is "He's running? Which way is he running?", at 2:20.

In his re-enactment, Zimmerman begins his supposed walk to the other end of the T-junction at roughly 5:03, pauses at 5:53 at the T-Junction for another statement that does not appear in the police call, resumes walking at 6:06, and ends at 6:30. However, in his police all, Zimmerman begins moving at roughly 2:24, affirms that he is following Martin at 2:29, and seemingly ends movement at 2:42. Again, the times simply don't match up - there was no way for Zimmerman to have walked to the other end of the walkway in the given time, even assuming that he was at the west end of it when he started.

Here's something interesting, At 6:50 in his reenactment, Zimmerman states that the dispatcher asks him where he wants to meet with police, and Zimmerman states that his car is "next to the clubhouse", which is not how I would describe the location where he said his car was previously, but would fit in well if he got out to chase Martin while they were, well, by the clubhouse. But this means that, rather than walking to the east end of the walkway, he likely stopped at the *west* end. In other words, there's virtually no chance that he was somehow blindsided by Martin while walking through the T-Junction back to his truckIn any case, looking at his police recording, at roughly 3:50, Zimmerman rejects the idea of meeting police by the mailboxes, instead asking that they call him when they are nearby so that he can tell them where he is.

Now, let's shift gears a bit. At 3:20, the dispatcher asks Zimmerman where he's parked in front of. But at this point, Zimmerman has already abandoned his truck, so of course he can't simply look and see a house number. So basically, he's scrambling events badly in his reenactment. At 3:40, he claims "I don't know where this kid is", which contradicts his claim that he thought Martin had vanished in his reenactment.

Another odd thing - Zimmerman claims at 7:24 in his walkthrough that, while walking back to his truck, he looks down the southern path, sees nothing, and continues walking, but that Martin then appears saying "Yo, you got a problem!?" Um, why would Martin do this? Zimmerman has already past him, so whatever it is that Martin was supposedly doing wrong (and we have no evidence he was doing anything wrong at all) why would he suddenly coalesce from the shadows to pick a one on one fight - especially since he literally ran away from Zimmerman not too long before? It seems much more likely to me that Zimmerman ended his police call, and then continued his pursuit of Martin.

Note that this is just a comparison of Zimmerman's claim, with his own police call. It doesn't go into the risible dialogue Zimmerman attributes to Martin, why Martin would bother mounting Zimmerman when he could easily just kick him in the head, how Martin could have spotted Zimmerman's gun while sitting on his waist, how Zimmerman could scream for help while unable to breathe, and other issues with his story.

And yes, this is a wall o' text. Sometimes, such things are necessary. The point is, it seems that Zimmerman followed Martin both in his car, and on foot. And thus, it's pretty reasonable that Martin would ask Zimmerman "Why are you following me?", and that Zimmerman, convinced without reason that Martin was up to no good, would reply "What are you doing here?"
 
Last edited:
Nice summery, Mumbles.

I would add that I believe we have sufficient confirmation that George parked his truck at the entrance to the tee.

If we take that as a starting reference point and presume that George is running, how far can he get before ending the call with SPD? How far could he travel before the encounter with Trayvon? Could he have gone past the tee and all the way to Retreat View Circle, headed south on RVC to the next opening between the houses and then cut between the houses to the path. In this position, George would be heading North towards the tee and his truck when he reaches the location where the altercation appears to have taken place.
 
Tuesdays hearing - ongoing

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Ge...s-8/-/1637132/19182402/-/bib85az/-/index.html

The defense withdrew its motion, however, when it learned that she "lied" about going to a hospital. The state conceded the point.

The defense also wants all the information about Martin, including any criminal history and Twitter and Facebook content, that was acquired by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

The FDLE says, however, there's possible criminal information in Martin's biographical file, and a lawyer for the agency said the information cannot be disclosed to Zimmerman.


Shocking. DeeDee lied. No doubt Angela Corey will be bringing her up on perjury charges forthwith.

I wonder how long the state has known she was lying ... and why they didn't bring her up on perjury charges earlier. It's almost as if there are two sets of rules ...

ETA: Defense has received 2 of the 3 missing videos.

Judge is reviewing whether defense gets FDLE bios of TM, GZ

ETA: Judge Nelson redacts some info, but defense gets the Bios. I think she said something about not redacting addresses - so FWIW, I guess the defense finally gets the addresses
 
Last edited:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Ge...s-8/-/1637132/19182402/-/bib85az/-/index.html

The defense withdrew its motion, however, when it learned that she "lied" about going to a hospital. The state conceded the point.

The defense also wants all the information about Martin, including any criminal history and Twitter and Facebook content, that was acquired by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

The FDLE says, however, there's possible criminal information in Martin's biographical file, and a lawyer for the agency said the information cannot be disclosed to Zimmerman.

Shocking. DeeDee lied. No doubt Angela Corey will be bringing her up on perjury charges forthwith.

I wonder how long the state has known she was lying ... and why they didn't bring her up on perjury charges earlier. It's almost as if there are two sets of rules ...

No, it's the same rule, the one you are so fond of quoting:
...whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter...

Perhaps in your letter of outrage to Angela Corey you can explain to her how, in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman, whether or not a witness attended the funeral of his victim is a material matter.

But at least you seem finally willing to admit Shellie Zimmerman lied. Good for you.

As Unabogie said, we're making progress.
 
So no immunity hearing? O'Mara claims he's still waiting for Judge Nelson to rule on "combining" the hearing with the trial, but from I understand, Florida law says the immunity hearing has to happen no less than 45 days before trial, which is why she reserved April for it. Also, there's two evidentiary standards for the trial and the hearing. In the hearing, the onus is on the defense to prove self-defense, so the defendant usually has to testify. While in the trial, the onus is on the state. I don't see how you can combine these without creating a basis for appeal, since one of those standards will be violated.

So in effect, the defense has waived the immunity hearing but is working to obscure that fact for public consumption. This isn't too surprising, though, since I don't think anyone here thinks George would have won immunity, correct?
 
Shocking. DeeDee lied. No doubt Angela Corey will be bringing her up on perjury charges forthwith.

I wonder how long the state has known she was lying ... and why they didn't bring her up on perjury charges earlier. It's almost as if there are two sets of rules ...

Here is the exchange in question.

BDLR:_ OK._ I’m not saying that they did._ I’m just making sure the records’ clear on that….Um…you obviously found out about what happened to Trayvon, right?_ And at some point you ended up knowing that he was killed, right?

Dee Dee:_ Yeah.

BDLR:_ Were you able to go to the funeral or to the wake?

Dee Dee:__I was goin’ to go, but…

BDLR:_ OK, what happened?

Dee Dee:__I didn’ feel good.

BDLR:_ OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?
Dee Dee:_ Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure.

So granted, this isn't good for her credibility, and certainly witnesses who lie should not be believed (but don't forget that standard when George does it, okay?) But if you guys want to parse Shellie's obvious deception and blame it on ambiguous questions, I'm not sure why you wouldn't give DD the same benefit of the doubt? I do see a double standard here, but it seems to be yours.
 
So granted, this isn't good for her credibility, and certainly witnesses who lie should not be believed (but don't forget that standard when George does it, okay?) But if you guys want to parse Shellie's obvious deception and blame it on ambiguous questions, I'm not sure why you wouldn't give DD the same benefit of the doubt? I do see a double standard here, but it seems to be yours.

And let's not forget that DeeDee had recently suffered a trauma, and we all know how unreliable memory can be, especially after a traumatic event.
 
Haven’t you girls resolved this yet? Jeez
If Zimmerman goes in front of a jury there is a good chance he’ll walk.
And then what happens, outrage and riots.
I suggest you people make print outs of your discourse on this thread to show the rioters so they won’t burn your house down.
The defense will do everything in it’s power to disqualify black juries.
Which will lead to nothing but outrage and claims of unfairness on both ends.
I think he’s guilty of some degree of homicide but it’s going to be almost in an imposable for the guy to get a fair trial, way to much taint on the whole thing.
The state has a huge vested interest in preventing LA type riots , so they will have to convict if It goes to trial
OR
This is what I think will happen
State Of Fla: Mister Zimmerman this is your last chance at a plea deal, plea to a lesser charge, get 5 to 10, out in 4 and a half with good behavior, spent in a facility with non violent short timers. And we won’t pursue charges against your wife.
Zimmerman: DUH ! I think I’ll take my chances.
State of FLA: If you are found guilty you will go forthwith to into general population, and if your wife is found guilty so will she, you’ll both last about a 3 days.
Zimmerman: What was that second part again?
 
Haven’t you girls resolved this yet? Jeez
If Zimmerman goes in front of a jury there is a good chance he’ll walk.
And then what happens, outrage and riots.
I suggest you people make print outs of your discourse on this thread to show the rioters so they won’t burn your house down.
The defense will do everything in it’s power to disqualify black juries.
Which will lead to nothing but outrage and claims of unfairness on both ends.
I think he’s guilty of some degree of homicide but it’s going to be almost in an imposable for the guy to get a fair trial, way to much taint on the whole thing.
The state has a huge vested interest in preventing LA type riots , so they will have to convict if It goes to trial
OR
This is what I think will happen
State Of Fla: Mister Zimmerman this is your last chance at a plea deal, plea to a lesser charge, get 5 to 10, out in 4 and a half with good behavior, spent in a facility with non violent short timers. And we won’t pursue charges against your wife.
Zimmerman: DUH ! I think I’ll take my chances.
State of FLA: If you are found guilty you will go forthwith to into general population, and if your wife is found guilty so will she, you’ll both last about a 3 days.
Zimmerman: What was that second part again?

Well, in fairness to us girls, there have been a lot of tea parties and ballet recitals to attend, so we haven't had a whole lot of time to resolve things.

But thank you for your helpful and informative post.
 
No, it's the same rule, the one you are so fond of quoting:


Perhaps in your letter of outrage to Angela Corey you can explain to her how, in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman, whether or not a witness attended the funeral of his victim is a material matter.

I might agree with you, it may not be material.

But at least you seem finally willing to admit Shellie Zimmerman lied. Good for you.

As Unabogie said, we're making progress.

However you interpreted my post to arrive at that conclusion, you've misinterpreted it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom