Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- The News showed a picture of Zimmerman after he was punched in the face.
- Why didn't the News show a picture of the kid's face after zimmerman murdered him?
- The News showed a picture of Zimmerman after he was punched in the face.
- Why didn't the News show a picture of the kid's face after zimmerman murdered him?
How dare Zimmerman repeatably slam his head into the angelic cherub's fists.... How dare he!!!
FYI it has come back that Zimmerman had no bruises on his knuckles...
I'm stating the obvious: It's known from the dispatch tapes that Zimmerman had decided that Trayvon Martin looked as if he were on drugs (which wasn't true), and that he looked suspicious because he was walking slowly and "looking about." Neither of those actions demonstrate criminal activity, particularly when you're discussing a teen who's talking to a friend on the phone during halftime of the NBA game he was watching. Next, Zimmerman chose to ignore the advice the police dispatcher and follow Martin, which put both of their lives in danger; poor judgement, if not a judgement made by someone under the influence of Temazepam and Adderall (and possibly other drugs or alcohol. Finally, Zimmerman was armed, which is neither condoned nor encouraged by any neighborhood watch association...another poor judgement. There may have been burglaries in the community, but to date we've seen no evidence of violent crime. All of this (and much, much more) will be considered at the trial, and when you factor in Zimmerman and his wife lying at the bond hearing, most people would question the character of Zimmerman. And unlike Zimmerman, I'm not prepared to condone or suggest an execution...merely justice.
We know tm had thc in his system. We don't know whether it was from that day or night or before then.
We know from witness statements that burglaries and vandalism were a problem in the neighborhood and several suspects or perpetrators were young black men. I don't find it too odd that gz thought tm looked suspicious.
NWA's don't have any rules or regs controlling what a member should do when driving to a store as a private citizen.
His trip to 7-11 wasn't during halftime of the game.
We know tm had thc in his system. We don't know whether it was from that day or night or before then.
We know from witness statements that burglaries and vandalism were a problem in the neighborhood and several suspects or perpetrators were young black men. I don't find it too odd that gz thought tm looked suspicious.
NWA's don't have any rules or regs controlling what a member should do when driving to a store as a private citizen.
His trip to 7-11 wasn't during halftime of the game.
Poor judgement isn't a crime, yet.
It was a trace amount of THC; that level would have been much higher had Martin been smoking that night. Again, burglaries and vandalism...nothing that implicates violence. I find it odd that Zimmerman found Martin to look "suspicious," as many black families live in that complex and he certainly didn't know them all. Walking while black is suspicious? Please. Zimmerman had tried to get an NWA going
without success: judging by the number of calls he'd made and the consistent references to him as an "unofficial neighborhood watcher" it seems obvious that he thought of himself as one. NWAs don't suggest that people acting unofficially follow or attempt to detain community members, whether permanent or temporary, on their way home from the store. Numerous sources have stated that Martin had gone to the store during the halftime of the NBA All-Star game; if you have evidence to the contrary, your problem is with those sources, and not people who have either read or heard that information. Poor judgement is a crime when it results in the death of an innocent person; ask anyone serving time for vehicular homicide, for example.
It's already been proven that Crump lied about the girl. He kept calling her a "16 year old girl" and "a minor," but documents filed with the court show she was 18 at the time. The documents also show that she wasn't willing to talk to the prosecuter, and they eventually had to send law enforcement to pick her up so they could interview her. Crump sent the defense a heavily edited and mostly unintelligible copy of her interview with him. He refuses to turn over the original. The prosecution says that can't compel him to turn it over, so there is currently a motion filed with the courts to get the original copy of her interview.
The prosecution also orignally withheld her age when they turned over discovery to the defense.
You can read the motion filed on Nov. 30th here: http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docum..._to_compel.pdf
One of the most interesting parts of that motion are the footnotes, where they carefully outline some of the lies and stonewalling by the Crump & the prosecution. The next hearing is on Dec. 11.
So exactly what does Crump lying about the girl or lying about anything else have to do with the girl's credibility? Crump is NOT an attorney for any party in this case. He is the private attorney for the Martins.
I read the motion to compel in your link. That is about the Defense wanting the recording Crump made BEFORE the defense takes the girl's deposition. The defense wants to make sure they have all of her statements prior to deposing her so they can examine her about those statements. I noticed that the Motion contains a lot of language about this girl being the "State's star witness", etc......so it seems obvious that the Defense thinks this girl's testimony may in fact be quite critical in this case.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 12-06-2012 at 10:32 AM..
So exactly what does Crump lying about the girl or lying about anything else have to do with the girl's credibility? Crump is NOT and attorney for any party in this case. He is the private attorney for the Martins.
I read the motion to compel in your link. That is about the Defense wanting the recording Crump made BEFORE the defense takes the girl's deposition. The defense wants to make sure they have all of her statements prior to deposing her so they can examine her about those statements. I noticed that the Motion contains a lot of language about this girl being the "State's star witness", etc......so it seems obvious that the Defense thinks this girl's testimony may in fact be quite critical in this case.
The defense isn't calling her a star witness, they said the prosecution is indicating they consider her a star witness by putting her in their "A" witness catergory.
The motion does an excellent job outlining how the prosecution and Crump are trying to keep her testimony away from the defense. The judge has already granted at least one other motion to compell regarding this interview.
Crump is refusing to turn over the information. He was also present at her interviews with police and the prosecution. The prosecution has also been sharing documents with him (Zimmerman's medical records for one, which seems like a HIPPA violation.) By inserting himself into interviews and withholding discovery, he has become part of this case and thus the multiple motions to compel against him.
And his lying matters because he was the one who "found" this witness (with Tracy Martin) and he "interviewed" her first. Did he influence her testimony? We don't know, but we do know that he is a documented liar, so that casts a shadow on her testimony. Just like the Zimmerman's dishonesty about the money casts a shadow on their character.
Also, the prosecution still has not turned over the cell phone records of Trayvon. The judge issued the order on Oct. 19th due to a motion from the defense. Trayvon's father and Crump have refused to give the password/code so they can access those texts/voicemail messages.
If Crump & the prosecution had solid evidence from the witness, they wouldn't be trying to hide everything. It shouldn't take multiple orders to compel to try to get a single interview- and even with those, they are still not producing the evidence.
It was a trace amount of THC; that level would have been much higher had Martin been smoking that night.
doesn't matter how large or small the amount. are you saying Martin isn't a pothead? the school that suspended him believes him to be... i see that you approve of pot smoking as long as there is a small trace amount.
Quote:
Again, burglaries and vandalism...nothing that implicates violence. I find it odd that Zimmerman found Martin to look "suspicious," as many black families live in that complex and he certainly didn't know them all.
stop ignoring the facts. his 911 recording clearly shows that zimmerman didn't know martin was black when he first encountered him. the 911 operator was the one asking if the suspect was black. zimmerman's conversation had no concerns with what race the hooded person was.
Quote:
Walking while black is suspicious?
if it fits the description of the one burglarizing the homes, yes. but in this case, race wasn't a factor with zimmerman.
Quote:
Zimmerman had tried to get an NWA going without success: judging by the number of calls he'd made and the consistent references to him as an "unofficial neighborhood watcher" it seems obvious that he thought of himself as one.
here in the south, we are all unofficial neighborhood watchers... and we also have guns.
Quote:
NWAs don't suggest that people acting unofficially follow or attempt to detain community members, whether permanent or temporary, on their way home from the store.
NWA still has to comply with the u.s. constitution.
Quote:
Numerous sources have stated that Martin had gone to the store during the halftime of the NBA All-Star game; if you have evidence to the contrary, your problem is with those sources, and not people who have either read or heard that information.
and this makes zimmerman a murderer? how so?
Quote:
Poor judgement is a crime when it results in the death of an innocent person; ask anyone serving time for vehicular homicide, for example.
it wasn't an accident that zimmerman shot martin. martin's poor judgement got him killed. zimmerman did what he was suppose to do. confront suspicious looking strangers in his community. when i lived in a gated community in FL, i did the same, but more politely. martin's bad judgement is physically assaulting someone with a gun.
many people believe that zimmerman pulled out his gun and martin started to scream for help. then zimmerman waited until his head was bashed in and punched in the nose before killing martin. somehow, i don't see that happening.
It's already been proven that Crump lied about the girl. He kept calling her a "16 year old girl" and "a minor," but documents filed with the court show she was 18 at the time. The documents also show that she wasn't willing to talk to the prosecuter, and they eventually had to send law enforcement to pick her up so they could interview her. Crump sent the defense a heavily edited and mostly unintelligible copy of her interview with him. He refuses to turn over the original. The prosecution says that can't compel him to turn it over, so there is currently a motion filed with the courts to get the original copy of her interview.
The prosecution also orignally withheld her age when they turned over discovery to the defense.
You can read the motion filed on Nov. 30th here: http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docum..._to_compel.pdf
One of the most interesting parts of that motion are the footnotes, where they carefully outline some of the lies and stonewalling by the Crump & the prosecution. The next hearing is on Dec. 11.
Okay it's a motion filed by the defense. They only thing that can be proven is that Crump was incorrect when he referred to her as a sixteen year old. Other than that, there is nothing to prove that Crump lied about what was said in the interview. What does her age have to do with what she heard while on the phone with Trayvon Martin? The phone records show that she was on the phone with him. Crump says he doesn't trust the Sanford PD with the original, so what? I am sure he will have to give it to submit it, but what matters is what she says on the stand. Clearly the prosecution feels that she should be put on the stand and will be a witness. If her story (what matters) was so unbelieveable, I doubt she would be put on the stand.
A phone call is not evidence, it's hearsay. All the defense has to ask this liar is "What exactly did you see"? When they say "I saw nothing", the defense will dismiss the witness and her testimony will be rendered meaningless.
Says who or what law? She can testify based on what she heard, first hand. Her testimony won't be rendered meaningless. It only matters what her testimony, along with other evidence, means to the jury.
The defense isn't calling her a star witness, they said the prosecution is indicating they consider her a star witness by putting her in their "A" witness catergory.
The motion does an excellent job outlining how the prosecution and Crump are trying to keep her testimony away from the defense. The judge has already granted at least one other motion to compell regarding this interview.
Crump is refusing to turn over the information. He was also present at her interviews with police and the prosecution. The prosecution has also been sharing documents with him (Zimmerman's medical records for one, which seems like a HIPPA violation.) By inserting himself into interviews and withholding discovery, he has become part of this case and thus the multiple motions to compel against him.
And his lying matters because he was the one who "found" this witness (with Tracy Martin) and he "interviewed" her first. Did he influence her testimony? We don't know, but we do know that he is a documented liar, so that casts a shadow on her testimony. Just like the Zimmerman's dishonesty about the money casts a shadow on their character.
Also, the prosecution still has not turned over the cell phone records of Trayvon. The judge issued the order on Oct. 19th due to a motion from the defense. Trayvon's father and Crump have refused to give the password/code so they can access those texts/voicemail messages.
If Crump & the prosecution had solid evidence from the witness, they wouldn't be trying to hide everything. It shouldn't take multiple orders to compel to try to get a single interview- and even with those, they are still not producing the evidence.
I know because I read it. The defense is saying that the State considers this girl to be a "star witness".......
Bottom Line, the State cannot withhold evidence from the Defense indefinitely. Have you ever heard of the Rules of Criminal Procedure? Ultimately, the evidence MUST BE TURNED OVER to opposing counsel. It is against the law not to do so. The Judge will throw counsel in jail for contempt of court. Lawyers know these things. Clearly, you are not familiar with the process. Yes, in fact, it's not all that unusual to file many Motions to Compel in murder cases like this for various things. The trial is scheduled for the month of JUNE....that's SIX months from now. What you are seeing now is how the discovery process works and unfolds.
No, no, no, Crump does not become part of the case as an attorney unless he files a notice of appearance as co-counsel with the State. THAT won't happen. Just because he may talk to the State about the case doesn't mean he's helping them "work" the case. WHERE have you read that Crump has been sitting in on interviews with the State and police? At this point, the Defense could call Crump for a deposition and legally ask him questions about his conversations with the state because there is no attorney-client privilege for Crump, unless Crump is the attorney of record for witness 8. He is NOT representing the State. Attorneys must file an official notice of appearance in cases to be the attorney of record and allowed to represent clients in court. The Judge can in fact order Crump and Martin's father to provide code words or numbers needed to retrieve evidence, and the court can do it in a heartbeat. If they refuse, they can be held in contempt of court.
Additionally, it does not matter WHO FINDS THE WITNESS. Unless Mr. Crump is attorney of record for witness 8, nothing about his "finding" her matters and will not come up at the trial. As for Crump "influencing" her story, the way that sort of thing is resolved in depositions and in court is that attorneys simply ask witnesses if they talked to anyone about the case and if they were coerced or given anything to testify in a certain way or were influenced by anyone to testify a certain way. The witness is under oath, and if that witness lies, well, that's why there are perjury laws.
NONE OF THIS STUFF ABOUT CRUMP WILL COME UP IN THE TRIAL. None of it. The judge will grant the motion to compel and REQUIRE Crump to give up the recording. No question about that. Motions to Compel during discovery in serious criminal cases are not at all UNUSUAL. This is how the litigation proceeds. CRUMP DOES NOT WORK FOR THE PROSECUTION. He is a private attorney. If he disobeys a judge's order to turn over evidence, then he will be in the middle of his own case because he will be charged with obstructing justice.
Please explain what the State/prosecution is withholding? Did they take a sworn statement from Witness 8? I would almost bet my life they didn't. They may have talked to her but I'm sure it was an informal interview and not a sworn statement. The DEFENSE needs to take her deposition (you know, questions and answers under oath being reported by a court reporter) to find out what she knows, what she remembers, and what she will testify to. THEN, when she gets on the witness stand, if her story is different from what she said in deposition, the defense will impeach her into infinity. THAT is why the Defense wants the recording made by Crump, so they can determine whether or not there were any changes in what she said between the time Crump recorded the conversation and when she later talked to the State and what she says in deposition.
The very fact that the DEFENSE wants this information/evidence so badly indicates to me that they are indeed very, very concerned about what this witness will say and how harmful it will be for their client.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Zimmerman had tried to get an NWA going
