Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

I've got little doubt the governor did what he did due to public pressure.

I don't think i mentioned conspiracy theory... but anyway.

No, that was a general "it's not a conspiracy theory" waiver for me.

I find the fact that the normal judicial process was short-circuited due to public pressure troubling. IOW - there was no way GZ was not going to be charged.

What is shocking to me is that none of the PIP's seem to have any trust that a judge would grant immunity or dismiss the case even if the case is as weak as you make it out to be.

The case is weak in both directions. There is a lack of evidence on both sides that makes it difficult to make a positive case. This makes it more difficult for the defense to prove by preponderance of the evidence GZ is not guilty. Conversely, that makes it difficult for the prosecution to prove guilt, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.
So while the prosecutions case is weak, that doesn't necessarily make the defense case strong in an immunity hearing.

I think MOM should have filed for immunity. I admit his not filing does appear to give some credence to those who claim it's because the case is weak. But there may be other reasons. One of them is tied to the political pressures discussed above. Because a "preponderance" of the evidence is somewhat arbitrary, I think any judge with ambition oh higher office would have a reason for ruling against GZ. That judge is going to feel the same pressure as the governor did. And I really don't think the public wants a judge to decide this case, but a jury.

Additionally, if MOM files for immunity during the trial ( and there is no legal reason he can't ) he gains an advantage by not revealing any of the defenses strategy prior to the trial. If he doesn't want GZ to take the stand, he can wait and see if the jury fails to convict GZ. If they fail to convict, MOM then files for immunity, and there is suddenly no pressure on the judge to not grant it.

 

[phonebook]

No, what you quoted above is all completely independant of whether or not Zimmerman is innocent or not.

You're right. I could have expressed myself more appropriately had I said: "I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's arrest and subsequent trial being unjustified, and you won't have any of that."

There's circumstantial evidence that injury happened. It's just heresay to suggest Trayvon was the one who initiated the assault, and completely contradictory to the actions of both on everything leading up to that point.

I suppose it's hearsay absent GZ's testimony/statements. Otherwise his statements alone, once submitted by the prosecution (I believe the defense can't volunteer any statements, only the prosecution can), count as direct evidence. I'm not sure if it's completely contradictory. GZ had two golden opportunities to confront TM (the first at the clubhouse (before he was on the phone with dispatch), when TM walked past GZ, and the second, near the T, where GZ ultimately parked his vehicle, when TM circled his car), but he didn't. He goes on in his subsequent interviews with investigators that he didn't want a confrontation, but I understand that that requires granting him more benefit of the doubt.

I can only explain in as I see it. And to be fair, I'm looking at this in a moral and ethical light rather than a purely legal one. We have one man who unnecessarily went out of his way to initiate a confrontation with a presumeably innocent bystander. That bystander was then shot to death.

Presumably innocent to whom? Us, with the benefit of hindsight? He went out of his way? What about the two golden opportunities to confront that I mentioned above? In what way was confronting him outside of his truck, in a darkened walking path more desirable? If anything, there were more potential witnesses (houses flanking both sides), so that's not why he would have opted for it there instead of at the clubhouse, with fewer homes nearby. What about the fact that the "innocent bystander" was seen on top of the shooter, moments prior to the shot, either hitting him, or at least pinning him down, keeping him from moving? What about the screams? Do you think it was the guy with the broken nose, abrasions on his face, and lacerations on the back of his head, seen underneath the guy who was ultimately shot? Or the guy who had zero injuries at that time?

The claim of self defense fails in that the trivial wounds Zimmerman had were nowhere near at the level that would make lethal force acceptable.

You call them trivial, yet a broken nose is considered "great bodily injury" in some states (in California it is, though I'm unsure about Florida). Legally speaking, he had the right to shoot. Since you're speaking from a moral standpoint though, what is your opinion on when GZ would have been morally justified to shoot? Did he need to hear his skull crack first? Did he need to first lose consciousness, and then regain it and realize he was still being beaten first? How much damage does one need to take to be morally justified in defending themselves from their attacker?

His story has enough plot holes in it to make Bollywood look like Shakespere. He has since engaged in various forms of suspicious behavior, which in my opinion, appear to be the actions of a person looking to dodge the hammer when it falls, rather than an innocent person waiting for reality itself to intervene on his behalf in the courtroom.

Creative, but specifics would be more appreciated. What sort of suspicious behavior? You mean the bond and passport stuff? Yeah... I'm unsure what my opinion is on that at this point. I imagine if GZ's wife's perjury case goes to trial I'll learn much more about that. It definitely appears shady, but I'm not ready to conclude that it was shady until I hear them at least attempt to explain themselves.

I wish to make the point that those medications would also not prevent him from willfully lying to cover himself when he has every reason to do so.

Nor would they preclude him of trying to tell the truth as best as his memory allowed him to. I'd argue he has every reason to tell the truth too, IF the truth is the story he describes, and would exonerate him.

I give him the benefit of a doubt. I'm completely prepared to be proven wrong. If I am proven wrong, I will consider making a sandwich. That is the depth of my concern as far as how correct I might be. But I'm still very skeptical. And frankly, baffled as to how anyone can consider the lethal force used and think mere head scratches and a whinged nose justifies it.

It wasn't just the injuries sustained up to that point, it was the unknown of what would happen next. Like I said above, how much was he required/expected to take, morally speaking? What if TM was going for his gun? Was GZ supposed to allow TM to take it, and wait and see what this unknown person who (allegedly) had just been pounding on him for the last minute or so would choose to do with it?

 

[Cylinder]

The night of the shooting? They hadn't even notified the victim's parents yet. Are you suggesting there was some sort of political outcry on the 26th?

That's ridiculous. SPD didn't have Martin's identity at that point. He had no ID, no fingerprints on file and none of the witnesses could identify the post-mortem photo. Why should SPD suspend its investigation of Zimmerman because of that fact?

 

[Cylinder]

Right but wouldn't they normally wait until office hours if it was after office hours? Or are you literally saying that calling at 11:45 PM on a Sunday would be normal?

Normal. I would be shocked if it wasn't required in cases of homicide.

 

[Rare Truth]

No and yes. Unfortunately, this country has a history of favoritism and unequal treatment, especially so across racial lines.
...

I've made it clear I do not think Zimmernan profiled him because he was racist. I do think there is an issue with the "good ole boys" in many police departments and Sanford had a particularly bad reputation for that, in fact why Chief Lee was there had to do with a cover-up prior involving a black man that was killed and they covered it up.

But I don't want to bog down with that, and I do think we have come a long way on our history. I just wanted to mention (and please forgive the following off topic comment) -- a statistic I found stunning recently.

It has to do with the defacto slavery that went on for some 80 plus years after the civil war. Up until the 50's, 60's. (please don't all hitchy, folks, on the mention of that "s" word...)

I am a history buff, but was completely unaware of this. It was from a PBS documentary based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book Slavery By Another Name. (well worth watching).

CLICK --> http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/watch/

LINK <- link to synopsis.

This was the stunning stat that blew me away:

In 1921 John Williams, former plantation owner, became the 1st Southern white man since 1877 to be indicted for 1st degree murder of an African American and it would not happen again until 1966.

I am NOT drawing any references to today with that, but it was a stat I found so unreal, so powerful, and so sad -- upon reading your comment, I couldn't help but want to share what is a very hidden part of history.

Again, apologies. </off topic>

 

[Mister Earl]

You're right. I could have expressed myself more appropriately had I said: "I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's arrest and subsequent trial being unjustified, and you won't have any of that."

It still doesn't make any sense. The actions of others in bringing attention to the situation have no bearing whatsoever in whether or not Zimmerman committed murder. Additionally, I'm skeptical that so many people would put their careers in jeapordy just to curry a miniscule amount of favor in railroading Zimmerman.

I suppose it's hearsay absent GZ's testimony/statements. Otherwise his statements alone, once submitted by the prosecution (I believe the defense can't volunteer any statements, only the prosecution can), count as direct evidence. I'm not sure if it's completely contradictory. GZ had two golden opportunities to confront TM, the first at the clubhouse (before he was on the phone with dispatch), when TM walked past GZ, and the second, near the T, where GZ ultimately parked his vehicle, when TM circled his car.

True, Zimmerman could have confronted him more directly at previous times, but did not. That tells me that Zimmerman was just trying to maintain contact, not force a confrontation. Only when Trayvon went where Zimmerman couldn't follow in his vehicle did he get out and persue. Then the confrontation happened. It's going to be tough to say who initiated the confrontation. I'm not so certain that it will ultimately matter, however.

Presumably innocent to whom? Us, with the benefit of hindsight? He went out of his way? What about the two golden opportunities to confront that I mentioned above? In what way was confronting him outside of his truck, in a darkened walking path more desirable? If anything, there were more potential witnesses (houses flanking both sides), so that's not why he would have opted for it there instead of at the clubhouse, with fewer homes nearby. What about the fact that the "innocent bystander" was seen on top of the shooter, moments prior to the shot, either hitting him, or at least pinning him down, keeping him from moving? What about the screams? Do you think it was the guy with the broken nose, abrasions on his face, and lacerations on the back of his head, seen underneath the guy who was ultimately shot? Or the guy who had zero injuries at that time?

Both parties are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The issue we're grappling with here (or at least I am) is whether or not Zimmerman was justified in escalating to lethal force. I do not believe he was justified. Zimmerman's injuries were slight. I've seen worse injuries get treated with Motrin on a military depot. If Zimmerman was pinned down, how did he move fifty feet? How did Trayvon get shot the way he did? I don't particularly care who was screaming and why. Screaming isn't a factor in the escalation of force. The main issue I'm dealing with as far as this whole case goes is I still see no reason, imagined or otherwise, that justifies use of deadly force.

You call them trivial, yet a broken nose is considered "great bodily injury" in some states (in California it is, though I'm unsure about Florida). Legally speaking, he had the right to shoot. Since you're speaking from a moral standpoint though, what is your opinion on when GZ would have been morally justified to shoot? Did he need to hear his skull crack first? Did he need to first lose consciousness, and then regain it and realize he was still being beaten first? How much damage does one need to take to be morally justified in defending themselves from their attacker?

I disagree. I do not believe he had the right to shoot. The police were summoned and on their way, Trayvon was heading out of the area, so Zimmerman could have achieved his goal of neighborhood safety simply by staying where he was. He did not. He got out of his vehicle and ended up in a confrontation with Trayvon. We do not have solid evidence as far as who initiated that confrontation, but given Zimmermans' decisions to continue to follow Trayvon, and Trayvon's decisions to keep moving away from Zimmerman, that makes me more inclined to believe that it was Zimmerman who initiated the confrontation. I'm willing to change my mind when something solid shows otherwise.

As far as when he should've escalated to lethal force, that's for when danger of life and limb is immenent. We only have one side of that story, given the other participant is dead, and the events he described don't match to what we know. We know he wasn't tackled on the grass, given his pristene clothing. We know that his head wasn't slammed into the sidewalk over and over again, given the minor contusions. His injuries look more consistent with being popped in the nose and then bumping the back of his head on the sidewalk once. That's about it. That is not danger enough to merit lethal force.

Creative, but specifics would be more appreciated. What sort of suspicious behavior? You mean the bond and passport stuff? Yeah... I'm unsure what my opinion is on that at this point. I imagine if GZ's wife's perjury case goes to trial I'll learn much more about that. It definitely appears shady, but I'm not ready to conclude that it was shady until I hear them at least attempt to explain themselves.

Fair enough. I'm all about innocent until proven guilty. But if the events happened as described, I would find that really damaging to his credibility.

Nor would they preclude him of trying to tell the truth as best as his memory allowed him to. I'd argue he has every reason to tell the truth too, IF the truth is the story he describes, and would exonerate him.

Possible, though I personally think this unlikely. Zimmerman's actions per the previous put everything he says in a suspicious light.

It wasn't just the injuries sustained up to that point, it was the unknown of what would happen next. Like I said above, how much was he required/expected to take, morally speaking? What if TM was going for his gun? Was GZ supposed to allow TM to take it, and wait and see what this unknown person who (allegedly) had just been pounding on him for the last minute or so would choose to do with it?

He should've let the law enforcement deal with it from the get-go. Given he got himself in that situation, it does not give him carte-blanche to crank off rounds the second someone scuffs his shoes. He should have done what Trayvon kept trying to do: Get away. Law enforcement was already on its way. Witnesses were there at least part of the time. I don't see much evidence that Zimmerman tried to disengage at all. The debris scattered around gives me the impression that movement DID happen, even though Zimmerman claims everything started and ended on the same spot. And if I'm remembering the timelines posted by others correctly, then if Zimmerman WAS trying to detach and get away, then he was doing it in the same line of retreat Martin was trying to use.

So the questions here are, Did Zimmerman try to detach? Did Zimmerman try to defuse the situation? Did Zimmerman inform Trayvon who he was and why he was following him? Did Zimmerman inform him he was armed? Did Zimmerman try to solicit aid from the witnesses? Did Zimmerman do literally ANYTHING to try to prevent lethal force from being used? Or did he shoot first and then enable storytime mode after?

On a side note, I'm still amazed that there wasn't footage of this confrontation. I would've bet heavily, at the start of this, that some CCD system somewhere would have caught some or all of this. Especially in a neighborhood with a history of robberies.

 

[phonebook]

We do not have solid evidence as far as who initiated that confrontation, but given Zimmermans' decisions to continue to follow Trayvon, and Trayvon's decisions to keep moving away from Zimmerman, that makes me more inclined to believe that it was Zimmerman who initiated the confrontation.

Just wanted to address this real quick.

I think the part I highlighted mischaracterizes TM's known actions. Nothing about his path is unique to "moving away from GZ", any more so than it is to him simply continuing on his predetermined path to where he was staying at the time. He was heading directly to his home. Had didn't take any sort of marked detour from a route that would be logically consistent with him simply walking home. This is where the (apparent) debate over whether or not TM returned to circle GZ's car comes in. If he returns from the T area, he's now the one going out of his way to actually get closer to GZ, and voluntarily get further away from his stated destination (stated by his parents, Dee Dee, etc.). I feel like GZ's statements, combined with what can be heard on the NEN call, especially the potential third voice (which, IMO, is likely Trayvon), indicates that this happened. This is directly contradictory to the idea that TM's movements had anything to do with getting away from GZ.

 

[remirol]

I suppose it's hearsay absent GZ's testimony/statements. Otherwise his statements alone, once submitted by the prosecution (I believe the defense can't volunteer any statements, only the prosecution can), count as direct evidence.

The defense can volunteer any of George's statements they want, as long as they put George on the stand to do the telling... which will be fatal to their case.

The defense CANNOT call any of the people who questioned George and ask them about anything George said, because that is hearsay. The prosecution, on the other hand, can call those people and cherry-pick the hell out of George's statements.

If you think that anything George said that would tend to exonerate him is going to make it into evidence without George taking the stand, you are sadly mistaken. The prosecution is very definitely not going to introduce any more than it has to, and i'm sure that you can see from what happens in this thread just how badly cherry-picking can make someone look.

(d) Statements which are not hearsay.
A statement is not hearsay if--
(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or
(2)Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or(B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or
(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or
(D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or
(E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

[Rare Truth]

"he ran"

"****, he's running."

 

[johnny karate]

Correction... an investigation was done, charges were not filed... the attorney for the family of the victim then went on a PR campaign (even hiring a PR firm), public outcry ensued, that reached all the way to the president of the United States, a "special" prosecutor was assigned, more evidence was apparently uncovered, or re-imagined, and THEN charges were filed.

So are you back to alleging that the charges are bogus?

What can you point to in the process that was illegal, unethical, or illegitimate?

Is that how the system works?

Yes, it is.

The only other explanation is that somehow all this happened in defiance of the system, and everyone involved - including Zimmerman's attorneys - just decided to go along with it.

I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's potential innocence and you won't have any of that.

No, I don't buy it because it's a bunch of ignorant, conspiratorial nonsense.

Zimmerman will get his day in court.

If he's innocent, the facts will bear that out.

Sure there is, but it's all circumstantial in nature.

You do understand that circumstantial evidence is perfectly legitimate, and can even be used to get a conviction, right?

There's also circumstantial evidence that TM assaulted GZ, bashed his head against the concrete, etc.

Martin hasn't been charged with a crime, so I'm not sure how that's relevant in determining if the evidence to charge Zimmerman was sufficient.

I feel like I've explained myself sufficiently in this regard already. There shouldn't be a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction.

I don't even know what you're talking about here.

The standards of evidence for a criminal charge and a conviction are very different, and the assurance of a conviction is most certainly not a requisite for a trial.

The original investigation didn't find such evidence, and it wasn't until a very political process occurred that somehow the evidence status changed, with the imposition of a "special" prosecutor who was actually able to find additional evidence, or interpret the existing evidence in the right way to go straight to 2nd Degree Murder. Was it DD's testimony that pushed it over the edge? If not, what was it?

I don't know.

Why don't you ask Mark O'Mara?

Because whatever the prosecution has, it's sufficient for him to not bother with an immunity hearing or even a motion for dismissal.

O'Mara is preparing for trial. So apparently he thinks the prosecution has something.

Do you really think that Angela Corey, the State Attorney who chose to charge a 12 year-old as an adult for 1st degree murder, was chosen with the notion that she potentially wouldn't find a reason to convict?

What I think is that no matter how mean and awful Angela Corey is, she can't manufacture evidence to prop up a bogus charge under the scrutiny this case has had and get away with it.

Why, something like that would require some sort of conspiracy to pull off.

In what way is it nonsense? Be specific.

I already was.

You're exaggerating. He has a legitimately diagnosed "mental disorder" that he's on medication for, and that has known issues with memory. He has exemplified this poor memory and general poor communication abilities in previous NEN calls, in his television interview with Hannity, in his many interviews with investigators, etc., etc.

He will likely say the same confusing things said in his interviews with the investigators that have lead many, like Unabogie, et al, that he is lying, instead of considering the possibility that it might actually be his memory that's at fault, it might actually be his obviously compromised communicative abilities at fault, or the fact that he might be telling the truth. Someone like him requires some benefit of the doubt, but that has not been given, whatsoever.

In your attempt to explain how Zimmerman is too confused and mentally unstable to do something as simple as tell the truth, you're contradicting your previous arguments.

You have asserted that the initial investigation - which included all those interviews with investigators you refer to above - it was determined there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman.

You have repeatedly argued that there is nothing incriminating in any of those interviews.

You have expressed incredulity that the prosecution would be able to use any of the evidence from the initial investigation - which again, included all those interviews with the investigators - to charge Zimmerman.

And now suddenly those same interviews that provided nothing incriminating enough to even merit a charge are evidence that Zimmerman can't be trusted to speak on his own behalf?

How did you make that leap?

 

[Unabogie]

"he ran"

"****, he's running."

Yeah, both George and the dreaded witness 8 agree on one thing, and that's that Trayvon ran away from George. George assumed it was because Trayvon was fleeing the law, while Trayvon thought he was fleeing a creepy man who meant him harm.

Obviously Trayvon was the correct one, since George was wrong and Trayvon wasn't fleeing the law, while Trayvon was right and George meant him harm, based on his cussing about him being a punk, calling the cops on him, chasing him, and eventually murdering him.

 

[Cylinder]

The defense CANNOT call any of the people who questioned George and ask them about anything George said, because that is hearsay. The prosecution, on the other hand, can call those people and cherry-pick the hell out of George's statements.

No. The doctrine of completeness doesn't allow that. Any statement by Zimmerman profferred by the state enters the whole statement into evidence - not just the parts the state wishes. Zimmerman can also impeach testimony on one statement with the contents of another. I'm pretty confident that if the case survives the immunity motion and motion to dismiss, Zimmerman will testify unless the state has some dramatic meltdown.

 

[phonebook]

He should've let the law enforcement deal with it from the get-go.

Deal with what? What part did he take upon himself to "deal with" that should have been left up to law enforcement? I thought that's what he was trying to do. Isn't that why he called the police? Why do you think he got out of his vehicle? Do you think he suddenly decided to confront TM now that TM was somewhere that required him to exit his vehicle to maintain a visual? He had been avoiding a confrontation up to that point, so why does he want a confrontation now, when he's at a much greater disadvantage out of his vehicle, etc.?

Given he got himself in that situation, it does not give him carte-blanche to crank off rounds the second someone scuffs his shoes.

I feel like your categorization of him getting his shoes scuffed is a tad disingenuous. He had two lacerations on the back of his head (one larger than the other). He had many scrapes/abrasions elsewhere on his face. He suffered all of that after first suffering a fractured nose, and screams for over 40 seconds and still this beating carries on. Imagine what GZ describes, that TM is on top of him, slamming his head against the ground, and punching him repeatedly. Now, listen to Witness 11's 911 call HERE. Tell me, do those screams not sound like the screams of someone being struck? Does that sound consistent with someone simply being held down? Did TM have carte-blanche to continue beating on GZ until he decided to stop?

He should have done what Trayvon kept trying to do: Get away.

If you believe that's what TM was trying to do, what prevented him from doing so? Was it time, was it distance, what? 2 minutes transpire from the time GZ says "****, he's running", til the call concludes. For two minutes GZ doesn't have a visual on TM, where TM is slightly over a football field away from his supposed destination. Another 2 1/2 minutes go by before the first 911 call comes in (or maybe it's the shot, I'm not sure).

Law enforcement was already on its way. Witnesses were there at least part of the time. I don't see much evidence that Zimmerman tried to disengage at all.

Disengage from what? What was there that he needed to disengage from? Keeping an eye on someone he felt was suspicious?

The debris scattered around gives me the impression that movement DID happen, even though Zimmerman claims everything started and ended on the same spot.

He didn't claim that. He claimed he was punched, and fell to the ground. He claims he was continually trying to shimmy or scoot out from underneath TM. In the reenactment, actually being on the scene again, he suggests that he may have been trying to push him away from him. I don't think he remembers exactly what happened in the moments immediately after the first punch to be honest, and I think that's perfectly understandable. I believe movement happened as well.

And if I'm remembering the timelines posted by others correctly, then if Zimmerman WAS trying to detach and get away, then he was doing it in the same line of retreat Martin was trying to use.

You mean the path that lead to TM's house? Why is that his line of retreat? That assumes TM was trying to retreat.

So the questions here are, (1)Did Zimmerman try to detach? (2)Did Zimmerman try to defuse the situation? (3)Did Zimmerman inform Trayvon who he was and why he was following him? (4)Did Zimmerman inform him he was armed? (5)Did Zimmerman try to solicit aid from the witnesses? (6)Did Zimmerman do literally ANYTHING to try to prevent lethal force from being used? (7)Or did he shoot first and then enable storytime mode after?

1 - Detach when? 2 - What situation, and when? 3 - Did TM give him the opportunity to do that? 4 - GZ claims he didn't recall having his gun until just before TM supposedly reaches for it, or towards it, or sees it. Considering he was likely screaming for help for over 60 seconds before the gunshot went off, and there's no evidence to suggest TM was aware of the gun at any point in time before the shot, or in the few seconds before the shot, I'd say that seems to be plausible. 5 - Does screaming for help and pleading with John to help him when John comes out and yells at them to stop count? 6 - What was he supposed to do? If what he says is true. 7 - I dunno... all we have are the ballistics and GZ's word to on as far as that is concerned.

On a side note, I'm still amazed that there wasn't footage of this confrontation. I would've bet heavily, at the start of this, that some CCD system somewhere would have caught some or all of this. Especially in a neighborhood with a history of robberies.

Wouldn't that have been sweet?

 

[remirol]

No. The doctrine of completeness doesn't allow that. Any statement by Zimmerman profferred by the state enters the whole statement into evidence - not just the parts the state wishes. Zimmerman can also impeach testimony on one statement with the contents of another.

Doesn't that apply only to written and/or recorded statements, though -- NOT conversations with the police?

[SIZE=-1]90.108 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.—(1) [/SIZE]When a writing or recorded statement[SIZE=-1] or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.
(2) The report of a court reporter, when certified to by the court reporter as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima facie a correct statement of such testimony and proceedings.[/SIZE]

I believe this varies by jurisdiction; in some jurisdictions conversations would be admissible under this rule. But it doesn't look like that's true in Florida.

I'm pretty confident that if the case survives the immunity motion and motion to dismiss, Zimmerman will testify unless the state has some dramatic meltdown.

The insurance company settling for seven figures tells me that while there may be a token immunity motion and a token motion to dismiss, the case will be surviving those just fine.

And from what I have read of Zimmerman's statements, I will stick with this prediction: If he gets on the stand, he will go to jail.

 

[AlBell]

I can see why there's this much interest in the case. On the face of it, it appears to be a brazen murder that the local law enforcement didn't bother to investigate. People think Zimmerman got away with murder.

WRT guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt on murder 2, not so much when facts are observed.

 

[AlBell]

...

I give him the benefit of a doubt. I'm completely prepared to be proven wrong. If I am proven wrong, I will consider making a sandwich. That is the depth of my concern as far as how correct I might be. But I'm still very skeptical. And frankly, baffled as to how anyone can consider the lethal force used and think mere head scratches and a whinged nose justifies it.

Since that is not the justifying cause it doesn't seem you are giving any benefit of doubt.

 

[phonebook]

And now suddenly those same interviews that provided nothing incriminating enough to even merit a charge are evidence that Zimmerman can't be trusted to speak on his own behalf?

I didn't imply he's "mentally unstable", at least those aren't words that I would use. He has ADD, ADD has a significant effect on memory. He has attempted to detail what he remembers of that night. Many things are consistent from interview to interview; sometimes things aren't totally consistent, or even contradictory. If you actually look at all the statements combined, you can begin to piece together a somewhat coherent story of what likely actually happened. I don't think this is him being intentionally deceitful, I think this is him struggling with his memory, and being a poor communicator in general. Listen to all the times he seems to give absent minded "Yes ma'ams" or things of that nature, when it doesn't even appear that he knows what the investigator is referring to.

Listen to this excerpt here, especially from the beginning to about 52:29, and even moreso from 51:52 to 52:02. Listen to how much Singleton stutters/stumbles with her words when she's trying to ask GZ a question. How could he understand what she's saying? At 52:02 he just politely says "Yes ma'am", and in doing so, he's contradicting (apparently absentmindedly) his statements he gave to Singleton 2 days prior. At 52:13 he seems to answer a question she doesn't even ask. Even she seems to be unsure that he knows what he's saying with the way she says "Ok...." at 52:29.

Continue listening to 54:49 for the entire confusing exchange there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWyzw-UM_WU&t=51m40s

Keep in mind that this is the very first time he's heard the NEN call, and he's having to spontaneously make sense of the fact that what he remembers and what actually happened, aren't apparently in sync, all while being questioned by two police investigators over a homicide he committed. He says "I don't remember even saying he had a button on his shirt". Listen to the deteriorating confidence in his "I think so's". He ends it with a bewildered "I don't remember..." Is all of that just feigned confusion?

 

[Cylinder]

Doesn't that apply only to written and/or recorded statements, though -- NOT conversations with the police?

Those kind of conversations with police are recorded statements. Listen to the very begining of each of the audio files. The police give time, place and people present and do the "end of interview" bit. That's to memorialize the information within that recorded statement.

 

[johnny karate]

I didn't imply he's "mentally unstable", at least those aren't words that I would use. He has ADD, ADD has a significant effect on memory. He has attempted to detail what he remembers of that night. Many things are consistent from interview to interview; sometimes things aren't totally consistent, or even contradictory. If you actually look at all the statements combined, you can begin to piece together a somewhat coherent story of what likely actually happened. I don't think this is him being intentionally deceitful, I think this is him struggling with his memory, and being a poor communicator in general. Listen to all the times he seems to give absent minded "Yes ma'ams" or things of that nature, when it doesn't even appear that he knows what the investigator is referring to.

Listen to this excerpt here, especially from the beginning to about 52:29, and even moreso from 51:52 to 52:02. Listen to how much Singleton stutters/stumbles with her words when she's trying to ask GZ a question. How could he understand what she's saying? At 52:02 he just politely says "Yes ma'am". At 52:13 he seems to answer a question she doesn't even ask. Even she seems to be unsure that he knows what he's saying with the way she says "Ok...." at 52:29.

Continue listening to 54:49 for the entire confusing exchange there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWyzw-UM_WU&t=51m40s

Keep in mind that this is the very first time he's heard the NEN call, and he's having to spontaneously make sense of the fact that what he remembers and what actually happened, aren't apparently in sync, all while being questioned by two police investigators over a homicide he committed. He says "I don't remember even saying he had a button on his shirt". Listen to the deteriorating confidence in his "I think so's". He ends it with a bewildered "I don't remember..." Is all of that just feigned confusion? If so, what about it has you convinced of that?

Not of that addresses this:

In your attempt to explain how Zimmerman is too confused and mentally unstable to do something as simple as tell the truth, you're contradicting your previous arguments.

You have asserted that the initial investigation - which included all those interviews with investigators you refer to above - it was determined there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman.

You have repeatedly argued that there is nothing incriminating in any of those interviews.

You have expressed incredulity that the prosecution would be able to use any of the evidence from the initial investigation - which again, included all those interviews with the investigators - to charge Zimmerman.

And now suddenly those same interviews that provided nothing incriminating enough to even merit a charge are evidence that Zimmerman can't be trusted to speak on his own behalf?

How did you make that leap?

According to you Zimmerman survived those interviews unscathed, so how are they now evidence that he shouldn't take the stand?

 

[phonebook]

Those kind of conversations with police are recorded statements. Listen to the very begining of each of the audio files. The police give time, place and people present and do the "end of interview" bit. That's to memorialize the information within that recorded statement.

Perhaps I'm just naive here... but doesn't the ability to do the highlighted part basically confirm the bolded part?