Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

I think Mr. Crump is going to be attending a deposition in the future. Just my non-legal 2 cents.

Apparently it is unusual for the District Court to involve itself in discovery issues pre-trial. O'Mara makes a great argument for it, though, IMHO.

 

[Unabogie]

You're setting it up as an either/or situation, when it's not.

A big aspect of why they don't feel they can have things prepared to their satisfaction by June, is exactly the same thing causing them to make this motion. They consider deposing Crump to be crucial to preparing for the case. I can see where they're coming from.

It's a bit like saying "Corporal, I told you to secure this bridge... you said you don't have enough time to do it properly with the resources I've given you, but somehow you have enough time to requisition more barricades and sandbags?!?!?!"

Plus, we don't know the inner-workings of the O'Mara law firm. Are these motions written up largely by legal aides with only a certain amount of oversight by O'Mara, giving suggestions and checking the final version before releasing it? Or are they written directly by him? Who knows.

Read what I wrote above. Their last motion for sanctions:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132536681/2nd-O-Mara-Motion-for-Sanctions-Fees

Was based on an event that was settled on the exact same day as it arose.

And for that, they wasted time on a motion for sanctions. This latest one is 40 pages long. And it seems largely an attempt to just re-iterate that DEEDEE LIED! ABOUT THE HOSPITAL!!! WHAT IS CRUMP HIDING!!!!

Sigh. I honestly think O'Mara is going to go full OJ here, and allege some giant conspiracy at the trial.

 

[Cylinder]

No, you don't. I refuse to believe you.

Kindness forces me to hope that's not true.

 

[Megalodon]

Do we know exactly which houses did or did not have any light emanating from them at that point? I think clearly, we do not. We have GZ's description that it was dark back there... right? But that's about it.

So it's you're opinion that GZ was lying? Or do you think you can be where it's to dark to see and someone from the outside can see you?

The larger flashlight didn't work reliably, doesn't mean it didn't emit some light before GZ gave up on it. The smaller flashlight on the keychain was working, and found illuminated by police, right? So, GZ was creating flashlight-based light, up at the top of the T.

Apparently GZ thinks he didn't have a working flashlight, and that was the reason he didn't go back to the car. Are you saying he was lying and actually was using a flashlight the whole time?

Now as for recognition? Direct visual recognition from that distance? No.

We agree on something.

Contextual recognition given the stopped headlights and previous monitoring by GZ? For sure.

For sure? In a block of houses that size TM would know that a figure that he could hardly see 100 m away was the same creep that was stalking him with a car? You have no doubts whatsoever regarding that?

Direct visual recognition may have been possible if TM was seeing this all from halfway down the dog walk or less, but I believe even from Brandi Green's or near it, contextual recognition was possible. And seeing at least some flashlight usage from that distance, was possible.

It would also be possible if he was hovering over GZ the whole time. You know how those youths are crafty, right?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Also, how and why would Martin sprint back to the house he was staying, stand around looking all the way to the opposite end of the alleyway, and when he spots George, sprint all the way back, *unarmed*, and try to kill Zimmerman? This would put him at a major disadvantage in any fight, since he'd go into it tired from all the running around he was doing, and he'd be ignoring the many obvious weapons that almost any house contains.

I think this is another theory that gets thrown into the trash pretty quickly.

In that strawman form? Perhaps.

When looked at more realistically? Maybe not so fast.

Let's say Martin rounds the corner, jogging and this is when Zimmerman last sees him. Martin then ducks behind one of those white divider fences, and a little bit after that sees Zimmerman come into view. He hears Zimmerman on the phone, saying things consistent with talking to the police... he watches as Zimmerman goes east and disappears behind the houses. He's got blunts in his pocket so he's worried about cops showing up or a security guard catching him with those... he's already suspended. So he sprints down to Brandi Green's, and at this point he's possibly considering going inside... but he may have either decided he didn't like being "punked" like that, or Deedee may have egged him on and made him feel like if he didn't go back and do something, he was a little whatever.

If he then sees Zimmerman reappear, by virtue of his flashlight, from the eastern street area... and can tell he's headed back toward his truck, it might create a sort of impulse decision situation where he realizes his opportunity to confront the guy is disappearing fast. Tosses the blunts down on the porch (Where Brandi and Tracy later find them, leading to the "he was sittin' out here on the porch" comment by Brandi) and he jogs up northward. He's 17, in great shape, so this doesn't exactly destroy him.

What's on his mind as he runs up there? Murder? I sincerely doubt it. One punch knockout? Seems more likely. Telling the guy off verbally? Possible. Likeliest of all? He doesn't exactly know what he intends to do. Just doesn't want to be a punk, doesn't want to back down, doesn't want to be embarrassed by Deedee knowing he did, and relaying that to others. So he runs up there with an unclear agenda, and makes another poor split second decision on impulse just like the one that led him to jog back up there, and the ones that got him suspended.

This is all speculation, but I don't see why it's not possible.

It explains the fight starting at the T as GZ and Witness 11 describe, it explains TM reappearing after being lost to GZ... it explains "Trayvon say he ain't gonna run" and "he right by his father house" it explains the disappearance of whatever he got from the three guys at 7-11 after waiting outside for them (if that happened), it explains why he ran (if he had something incriminating in his pocket) it explains Brandi's comment about the porch... it explains a lot.

 

[Unabogie]

No, you don't. I refuse to believe you.

Yes I do. I don't think the Crump conspiracy, know by the CTH folks as the "Scheme Team", is going to help George explain why he murdered that kid. He's going to have to have some credibility. And honestly this behavior is the weirdest thing I've seen watching a trial. I don't understand what he's trying to do here. I think he's not acting rationally.

 

[Cylinder]

Yes I do. I don't think the Crump conspiracy, know by the CTH folks as the "Scheme Team", is going to help George explain why he murdered that kid.

My guess is "George explain[ing] why he murdered that kid" isn't their exact strategy. Call it a hunch.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Read what I wrote above. Their last motion for sanctions:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132536681/2nd-O-Mara-Motion-for-Sanctions-Fees

Was based on an event that was settled on the exact same day as it arose.

And for that, they wasted time on a motion for sanctions.

Maybe he wrote it (all 4 pages ) while he was waiting for the Judge to tell BDLR that witness 8 could be recorded (over his spurious objections).

This latest one is 40 pages long. And it seems largely an attempt to just re-iterate that DEEDEE LIED! ABOUT THE HOSPITAL!!! WHAT IS CRUMP HIDING!!!!

Sigh. I honestly think O'Mara is going to go full OJ here, and allege some giant conspiracy at the trial.

"This latest one" isn't a motion for sanctions. It's a legal argument that the Defense should be allowed to depose crump. Whether you, in all your legal wisdom, think it is relevant or not.

It goes into some detail about the information the defense wants. Maybe you should read it ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes I do. I don't think the Crump conspiracy, know by the CTH folks as the "Scheme Team", is going to help George explain why he murdered that kid. He's going to have to have some credibility. And honestly this behavior is the weirdest thing I've seen watching a trial. I don't understand what he's trying to do here. I think he's not acting rationally.

I see your problem. Simply because you don't understand what he's trying to do it does not follow that he's not acting rationally.

 

[12AX7]

My guess is "George explain[ing] why he murdered that kid" isn't their exact strategy. Call it a hunch.

Then your 'hunch' and 'guess' are wrong.

Zimmerman is on trial for murder 2. That's him (them) explaining why he murdered an unarmed teenager.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Then your 'hunch' and 'guess' are wrong.

Zimmerman is on trial for murder 2. That's him (them) explaining why he murdered an unarmed teenager.

I have a hunch that Zimmerman and his legal counsel dispute the characterization of "murdered."

They would probably contend that Zimmerman fired one bullet into Martin while being restrained, prevented from escaping, and beaten by the deceased. And that this bullet was fired as a means to stop that assault.

The fact that this single bullet ended up hitting Mr. Martin in the heart, and ending his life, is an unfortunate consequence but there is no reason to think that Zimmerman had the time or ability to know he was aiming at Martin's heart, or to formulate thoughts that he desired this person to die from the shot... rather than simply stop what he was doing as a result of the shot.

I guess climbing on top of someone you have already broken the nose of, and then continuing to beat them as they scream in terror is sort of an inherently risky thing to do and sort of a bad idea?

Maybe this is why there are laws against doing that... things that make you go "hmmmm"

 

[Wolrab]

Serino: You’re in the rain, you’re getting wet, you’re on the phone.
Zimmerman: Because I was waiting, I, the,
I had light there… Serino: So…
Zimmerman: Where I was at and I was trying to hit my flashlight. I didn’t want to walk back through without light.

Was GZ near a street lamp? If so he would be very visible.

 

[Dan O.]

He's got blunts in his pocket so he's worried about cops showing up or a security guard catching him with those...

Are you still smoking that? There is no evidence that he had blunts and strong evidence that he didn't. If MOM was going to present this theory, we would already know about it through key facts that would have been in what's already been released.

 

[Dan O.]

Was GZ near a street lamp? If so he would be very visible.

Have you looked at the area in google maps? The street lamp is on the other side of RVC. And the lights are on a high pole above the height of the buildings. It's more likely that he would stop in front of one of the garage units where there is a nice light illuminating the driveway and house number and where the house would provide protection from the wind. But the row of cars in the driveways and shrubbery near the houses would hide him from view from down the street.

But wait, we know who lives in this first unit. This is Flashlight man. Didn't he say that he and his wife were in their garage at the time. And I seem to recall they said that the door to their garage was open.

 

[KatieG]

I'm sure plenty of witnesses don't like being video taped. Yet, in the Case Anthony case video taped depositions of everyone as far as I recall, were all done and were all made available to the public rapidly.

What is it about Witness 8 which makes her so special? I'd wager it's one of two things:

1.) She really is a scared young lady who just doesn't want to be identified, and this is why she sat on information about her best friend being murdered for weeks, before finally not coming forward, but rather having to be hunted down by Crump. This also explains her reticence about being videotaped for her deposition. BDLR and the state are merely reflecting her desires and advocating for her in this regard by pushing back against O'Mara.

2.) The reason she wants to avoid being seen on tape is the same reason she lied about her age, lied about her whereabouts during Trayvon's wake, and seemingly offered to lie to BDLR at least twice during her deposition with him. She's a liar, and is lying about nearly everything, or everything of importance, in her account.

My money is on option 2.

How and/or why do you think she lied about her age? What would be the purpose?

 

[Dancing David]

I am having difficulty reconciling that reasoned thoughts and confused thoughts could be the same thing. How do you determine what reason is if you allow it to be confused?

Excuse me, we are not discussing Mr. Spock or Mr. Data here, seriously?

A reasonable person can experience panic, I do not recall that I stated anywhere 'A person who is calm and collected, in complete possession of a sound judgement unbent by emotions',

So now are you saying that a reasonable person is like a light switch and that it turns on and off, what if a reasonable person would be panicked? What then?

The law uses much more flexible standards, a reasonable person is one who behaved reasonably, not delusional, obsessive or is dominated by emotional control issues. It would be ridiculous to think that a reasonable person would not have fear or panic, that is why the law states 'a reasonable fear'. You seem to imply that a reasonable fear would negate the 'reasonable' part of a 'reasonable person'.

 

[Dan O.]

Excuse me, we are not discussing Mr. Spock or Mr. Data here, seriously?

A reasonable person can experience panic, I do not recall that I stated anywhere 'A person who is calm and collected, in complete possession of a sound judgement unbent by emotions',

So now are you saying that a reasonable person is like a light switch and that it turns on and off, what if a reasonable person would be panicked? What then?

The law uses much more flexible standards, a reasonable person is one who behaved reasonably, not delusional, obsessive or is dominated by emotional control issues. It would be ridiculous to think that a reasonable person would not have fear or panic, that is why the law states 'a reasonable fear'. You seem to imply that a reasonable fear would negate the 'reasonable' part of a 'reasonable person'.

Reasonable, reason-able, a person who is able to reason and therefore not overwhelmed by fear or panic. It is the situation that must be considered and not the state of mind of the person.

 

[12AX7]

I have a hunch that Zimmerman and his legal counsel dispute the characterization of "murdered."

You're most likely correct.

They would probably contend that Zimmerman fired one bullet into Martin while being restrained, prevented from escaping, and beaten by the deceased. And that this bullet was fired as a means to stop that assault.

The fact that this single bullet ended up hitting Mr. Martin in the heart, and ending his life, is an unfortunate consequence but there is no reason to think that Zimmerman had the time or ability to know he was aiming at Martin's heart, or to formulate thoughts that he desired this person to die from the shot... rather than simply stop what he was doing as a result of the shot.

I guess climbing on top of someone you have already broken the nose of, and then continuing to beat them as they scream in terror is sort of an inherently risky thing to do and sort of a bad idea?

Maybe this is why there are laws against doing that... things that make you go "hmmmm"

And we're back to this again. Are we really going to re-argue the severity (or lack thereof) of George's wounds? Do George's stories match the evidence? If this case was as easy as you describe, it would already be over through an immunity hearing.

The defense will not have an easy case.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

How and/or why do you think she lied about her age? What would be the purpose?

I'm not sure if she lied to Crump about her age, or if he told her he was going to lie about it on her behalf... no idea.

What I think the most obvious purpose of that lie was, is achieving a lower level of scrutiny from the press and everyone else, directed at her. "Oh she's a minor, guess it's hands off and tread lightly."

I've heard others suggest another parallel purpose, which is avoiding unpleasant questions of statutory issues with Trayvon, who was 17. I don't put much stock in that, because how would anyone prove they'd been intimate? I guess perhaps it could be proven if one or both of them made reference to that on social media or to someone else... but I don't consider that to have been a reasonable basis for fearing her real age being known. Then again, just because it was an unreasonable thing to fear, doesn't mean she didn't fear it.

Personally though, I only mention that to be complete, and because I've seen others mention it. I personally just think it was a method to reduce scrutiny and follow up by press.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

And we're back to this again. Are we really going to re-argue the severity (or lack thereof) of George's wounds?

Nothing I said required any particular severity of George's wounds. It is enough that the wounds exist, to make the point I was making.

Do George's stories match the evidence?

I think so, yes.

Serino said they were "marginally consistent" and I agree with TheL8Elvis if he was the one arguing about what "marginally" means in that context (btw though, there isn't really any argument, it still means consistent, period.) Of course, Serino's use of the word "marginally" also implies something more, or he would have just said "consistent" what was he trying to imply by putting the word "marginally" there? That he would've expected the wounds to be worse. Sounds like you're of the same opinion. That's fine, lots of people are.

Fact is though, Zimmerman described a punch to the nose, and his head being hit against the concrete. Sure enough, he had wounds in exactly the right spots for that. What Witness 6 described also matched the concrete part.

If this case was as easy as you describe, it would already be over through an immunity hearing.
The defense will not have an easy case.

Or over through not having started to begin with... via SPD declining to charge Zimmerman, or Norm Wolfinger doing likewise.

Fact is, this case was over. Rightfully so. It lives now in a strange undeath, which seems to have very little to do with the law or evidence, and a lot to do with politics and possibly fear of riots.