Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

It's witness impeachment not fact impeachment. It is evidence for the jury to consider when giving weight to a specific witness' testimony.

Why would the jurors need to be provided evidence that the parents of the victim might be biased??

Should we also provide for them evidence that the sky is blue?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm all over the double standard. You have exactly zero details about where he was staying beyond this one answer.

That's one more detail than you have, though.

No context. No time frame. No reason. And yet you use that one fact to state that Trayvon's family situation was "dysfunctional". That's quite a leap.

I disagree. Maybe his parents should explain why he wasn't living with either of them, Easy to clear up any possible misconceptions that way.

On the other hand, George was estranged from most of his family, meaning they weren't talking. He was accused by his cousin of raping her over ten years.He was convicted of assaulting a police officer and yelling "**** you" at him.

No, he wasn't convicted of assaulting a police officer.

People continually mis-stating the facts is one of the reasons this thread is so long.

He had a restraining order placed on him because he assaulted his girlfriend. Those are facts with context and detail. The living situation you cite again and again is bereft of that detail. Which is why you snipped and dodged my questions.

If you say so.

Notice the highlight!

Her lawyer filed a motion to dismiss and lost. And yet he still filed it because there was a chance she'd have her case dismissed and the problem would all go away. But yet you don't see the same thing from the guy with the perfect self-defense case;

False equivalence. A motion to dismiss and motion for immunity are quite different.

one so clear and obvious that Angela Corey should be disbarred for even bringing charges?

Where did I say that ? Oh , I didn't. That's just you tearing down strawmen again.

But again, I really don't think you understand the meaning of the term "self-serving" because stuff her lawyer says to the press about potential witnesses has no bearing on her chances at trial. But if you really think that "bankers" (meaning tellers) will know something exonerating and be more important than Peter Pan and the obvious attempt at structuring and the obvious knowledge of $150,000 in the bank when she said she didn't know of any money, I'm here to tell you you're wrong.

As always, your legal predictions are taken with the appropriately sized grain of salt.

 

[sugaree]

He was living with Uncle Stephen and aunt Miriam Martin, according to Tracy Martins sister. (note this is not the uncle in the wheelchair)


Start at 1:55 minutes in, In answer to the direct question of who was TM living with, you hear Tracy Martins sister say TM was living with his Uncle. Tracy was living with his sister.

I just haven't heard much questioning why TM was not living with either of his parents.

I took out your link because I can't post links.

In the interview you linked, Trayvon's aunt says only that Trayvon was living with an uncle; she doesn't specify which uncle. So why wouldn't Ebony be referring to the uncle who lived with Sybrina?

I've Googled Stephen Martin and Miriam Martin, and found an interview with Miriam in which she describes "Trayvon's drawer" in a chest in her son's room, which sounds like he was a frequent house guest but not an actual resident. Surely, if he lived there, he'd have enough possessions to fill up more than a drawer.

I think there's not much questioning of Trayvon's living arrangements because 1) it's pretty irrelevant to the events of that evening; and 2) there's no evidence he didn't live where his family says he lived.

 

[johnny karate]

Spelled out in MOMs response to crump:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/resp_to_crump.pdf

Why can't anyone explain in clear and simple terms the specific reason why unsealing this documet is so important to Zimmerman's case?

 

[Cylinder]

Defendant's Second Amended Witness List (Redacted)

The SPD list has doubled from the last witness list.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why can't anyone explain in clear and simple terms the specific reason why unsealing this documet is so important to Zimmerman's case?

Who claimed it was "so important" ?

As I understand it, the claim is GZ has the right under the legal process to discover certain information, and the argument put forth by his attorney is that this agreement contains such information. It may not turn out to be useful or important information, but the idea is that MOM can't know that unless he knows the actual information. It's not that complicated.

There is even a helpful example about how Tracy Martin changed his story (lied) about the voice identification, and how MOM is unaware of a "cleaned" up version of the tape that Martin claims to have heard that subsequently caused him to change his story.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I took out your link because I can't post links.

In the interview you linked, Trayvon's aunt says only that Trayvon was living with an uncle; she doesn't specify which uncle. So why wouldn't Ebony be referring to the uncle who lived with Sybrina?

Did you listen to the interview ? She said he lived with his uncle, her brother. That makes it Uncle Stephen.

I've Googled Stephen Martin and Miriam Martin, and found an interview with Miriam in which she describes "Trayvon's drawer" in a chest in her son's room, which sounds like he was a frequent house guest but not an actual resident. Surely, if he lived there, he'd have enough possessions to fill up more than a drawer.

Argument from incredulity vs Stephens sister clearly stating he lived there.

I think there's not much questioning of Trayvon's living arrangements because 1) it's pretty irrelevant to the events of that evening;.

There is a narrative that the Martin family hired a PR firm to tell. TM was a "good kid" who would never do anything bad. The facts that he was suspended from school 3 times in the first ~ 1/2 of the school year and that he was not living with his mother ( for a reason not explained by the family ) are reason enough to start to question the narrative being put forth.

and 2) there's no evidence he didn't live where his family says he lived.

His aunt saying he lived at Uncle stephens is not evidence ?

 

[Alt+F4]

Maybe his parents should explain why he wasn't living with either of them...

Why should they have to explain that?

 

[Dancing David]

He was living with Uncle Stephen and aunt Miriam Martin, according to Tracy Martins sister. (note this is not the uncle in the wheelchair)

http://www.power92chicago.com/pages/11402605.php?archive=1&pid=227820

Start at 1:55 minutes in, In answer to the direct question of who was TM living with, you hear Tracy Martins sister say TM was living with his Uncle. Tracy was living with his sister.

I just haven't heard much questioning why TM was not living with either of his parents.

And it may come up in discovery, but it has to be relevant.

 

[Dancing David]

It's witness impeachment not fact impeachment. It is evidence for the jury to consider when giving weight to a specific witness' testimony.

And I ask again, how does that rain of argument work, exactly. The fact that somebody did this in a civil lawsuit is germane to the testimony, how?

Again, you can deal with the testimony by the usual means.

This is the criminal case, if TM's parents bring civil suit against GZ that would be a separate case.

So for the third time, specifically how is it relevant?

 

[Cylinder]

And I ask again, how does that rain of argument work, exactly. The fact that somebody did this in a civil lawsuit is germane to the testimony, how?

It's evidence of a financial motive used for witness impeachment.

 

[johnny karate]

Who claimed it was "so important" ?

It's importance is self-evident. O'Mara is of limited time and resources, and he has spent both on this issue, at the expense of other areas of evidence.

Therefore, this must be pretty important.

As I understand it, the claim is GZ has the right under the legal process to discover certain information, and the argument put forth by his attorney is that this agreement contains such information. It may not turn out to be useful or important information, but the idea is that MOM can't know that unless he knows the actual information. It's not that complicated.

Well sure, it's not complicated when you gloss over it with vagueness.

What could possibly be in that document that has anything to do with Zimmerman's self-defense claim or the events that transpired the night he killed Martin?

There is even a helpful example about how Tracy Martin changed his story (lied) about the voice identification, and how MOM is unaware of a "cleaned" up version of the tape that Martin claims to have heard that subsequently caused him to change his story.

What does any of that have to do with Zimmerman's self-defense claim?

The physical evidence and witness testimony corroborates his story, right?

The prosecution has no evidence to contradict his story, right?

So of what importance is determining whether or no Tracy Martin lied about recognizing his son's voice? How does that prove or disprove Zimmerman's self-defense claim?

 

[Cylinder]

The 14th and 15th Supplemental Discovery exhibits have been filed on the court's online docket. One of them should be data recovered from Zimmerman's phone, which is protected. No idea off-hand what the other is or if it's in response to a demand.

 

[This is The End]

It's evidence of a financial motive used for witness impeachment.

Yes but, by default, they already have a reason to lie about the person who killed their son. The defendant admittedly killed their son! Them possibly, or even likely, lying to try and get him found guilty of murder is a no-brainer.

What good does it do to try and provide evidence for another reason they might lie??

 

[Unabogie]

Looks like more evidence from the state.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...rosecutor-angela-corey-evidence-rachel-fugate

Of interest:

Most names were redacted from the witness and evidence document obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, but six civilian witnesses were named: Trayvon's parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin; his brother, Jahvarius Fulton; and Zimmerman's neighbor Frank Taaffe, friend Joe Oliver and father, Robert Zimmerman.

It'll be fun watching Frank Taaffe on the stand. I guess he knows old George after all?

The list includes new video evidence from the night of the shooting — both from the 7-Eleven store where Trayvon reportedly purchased Skittles and Arizona iced tea and from a clubhouse in Retreat at Twin Lakes, the townhouse complex where the teen was killed.

This one is very interesting. I know there were cameras there, but I've always thought they weren't very informative. I'm very curious if they give a better sense of where George was as he made his call prior to the murder.

Also included in the evidence are phone records — Zimmerman's from Feb. 20 to Feb. 28 and from March 7 to March 22, Trayvon's from Jan. 1 through March 1, and those of an unnamed witness labeled "W8" from Feb. 26 through April 2.

Another interesting tidbit. Why would the state be using George's phone records?

Five fire-rescue personnel are listed as witnesses. So are a fingerprints expert with Sanford police and FDLE experts in the fields of firearms, DNA, trace evidence and fingerprints.

I assume this is going to be used to show how the DNA refutes George's story. Lack of trace evidence that ought to be there, but isn't.

Also listed are two employees with the Volusia County medical examiner's office and a pair of Federal Bureau of Investigation audio experts. The list also includes Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, two audio analysts who told the Sentinel they believe the screams heard in one 911 call were those of Trayvon, not Zimmerman.

Well, well, well! Buckle your seatbelts!

 

[quadraginta]

Who claimed it was "so important" ?

As I understand it, the claim is GZ has the right under the legal process to discover certain information, and the argument put forth by his attorney is that this agreement contains such information. It may not turn out to be useful or important information, but the idea is that MOM can't know that unless he knows the actual information. It's not that complicated.

<snip>

Fishing expedition? Yeah, that's not too complicated.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why should they have to explain that?

I didn't claim that they had to. But the answer was in the part you snipped

Easy to clear up any possible misconceptions that way.

When the parents lie about the school record, and then lie by omission about family life, it's easy to draw what might be the wrong conclusion about whether TM was the kind of kid who would assault people or not.

 

[sugaree]

Did you listen to the interview ? She said he lived with his uncle, her brother. That makes it Uncle Stephen.


Argument from incredulity vs Stephens sister clearly stating he lived there.



There is a narrative that the Martin family hired a PR firm to tell. TM was a "good kid" who would never do anything bad. The facts that he was suspended from school 3 times in the first ~ 1/2 of the school year and that he was not living with his mother ( for a reason not explained by the family ) are reason enough to start to question the narrative being put forth.




His aunt saying he lived at Uncle stephens is not evidence ?

Yes, I listened to the interview. No, she did not say what you say she said. The interviewer asks her if Trayvon lived with her, and she says "Um, Trayvon um actually lived with his uncle. Um, my brother [meaning Tracy] does live with me."

 

[johnny karate]

It's evidence of a financial motive used for witness impeachment.

And... we're back to first position:

Evidence of financial motive as impeachment.

Motive for what?

Impeachment of what exactly?

At this point, it's quite evident that not even Zimmerman's defenders can explain what O'Mara is after with this motion.

Fishing expedition? Yeah, that's not too complicated.

Exactly.

Strange that an attorney with such a strong self-defense case to make for his client would have to resort to such tactics.

Especially considering how little time and money he has, and the complaints that he doesn't have enough of either.

One would think those dwindling resources would be better spent bolstering that strong self-defense case with all that evidence that so clearly supports it.

 

[Alt+F4]

When the parents lie about the school record, and then lie by omission about family life, it's easy to draw what might be the wrong conclusion about whether TM was the kind of kid who would assault people or not.

People who assault other people....assault other people. TM was never charged, arrested or assaulted anyone. He has no "record". The worst he ever did was smoke weed and get into minor trouble at school - so have millions of other teenagers.

Draw all the conclusions you want, the FACTS speak for themselves.