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.
It won't prove a thing as to who started what. I will bet any amount of money DD is a liar and she won't be put on the stand so she doesn't commit purgery.
You may possibly be clueless about how the court system works and the law, based on the above statement. The Defense has not even taken her deposition yet and you think you know she's a liar and that neither side will use her.
It's meaningless. It's all they have so they are going to try and make you believe it is strong evidence, when it is far from it. The EYEWITNESSES' testimony will be hard to overcome.
LOL That's really funny. Btw, how many trials have you worked?
I want to make it clear that I do not think Trayvon was a thug or casing houses or that he was "a ruthless killer or an animal". I did wonder about his gang ties when the news first came out with photos of him shooting gang signs and talking like a thug. But apparently some of that stuff was not true. Maybe, maybe not, I have not investigated it, it is not really relevant. I do think there was good reason for Zimmerman to have concern he might be casing houses, because other people who fit his description had done so in the recent past.
I disagree with your characterization that Zimmerman was a "a person who follows and scares a person then shoots them." Zimmerman had every right to be walking on the same sidewalks that Martin was walking. That is not an unlawful act. Martin had no more reason to be fearful of Zimmerman than he would of any other person who was walking the same sidewalk.
There is no evidence that Tryvon was standing his ground. All of the available evidence indicates that in the final moments Tryvon was the aggressor and started the physical confrontation. In the eyes of the law that is all that matters.
This is the best detailed analysis of the case that I have seen, written by a defense attorney who has carefully reviewed all of the witness testimony and statements available on the case:
The first question I have about the legal analysis you quoted is that the link indicates it was written or posted May 27th, 2012. Discovery was not completed by that time. So how could this attorney have read all the discovery in the court file back at that time and be certain that there have not been changes in testimony of witnesses and more evidence turned over since then?? I'm sure the defense was NOT taking depositions back in May of this year. In fact, it appears that the defense is still taking depositions in this case. So his analysis was based on ONLY what he could have read which was either in the court file or information published by the media by May 27th of 2012. That was incomplete information at that time. There is certainly more evidence and statements in the court file in this case now.
From your link:
__________________________________________________ _________________________________ 'George Zimmerman: The Most Likely Scenario
By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:05:00 AM EST'
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
The problem I see with the legal analysis you quoted is IF they put Zimmerman on the stand to testify ABOUT ANYTHING, that is going to open him up for cross examination and the State will use everything they've got to impeached him with his the many conflicting statements he has made and destroy his credibility. I am assuming that some of those are sworn statements given by Zimmerman to law enforcement PLUS his many statements on his web site and on national TV. Certainly at this point, Zimmerman has not given anyone a deposition, so technically there is no testimony by Zimmerman at this time. Only his statements to police and to the media, etc.
Are you aware that there was no DNA from Martin found on Zimmerman, even though Zimmerman claims Martin was on top of him when he fired the gun.......not one tiny drop of blood fell from Martin's body onto Zimmerman, and there was no DNA from Martin on the gun Zimmerman used to shoot him at very close range?
I think there may just be enough circumstantial evidence to possibly get a conviction in this case.
IMO, Martin (or anyone else) had every reason to be fearful of Zimmerman because Zimmerman was clearly following him in his car, then on foot, not just taking the same route as Martin to get to the condo next door to where Martin was visiting or something; ultimately Zimmerman killed him which demonstrates to me that Martin's fear was reasonable and justified. Zimmerman had a gun; Martin did not.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 12-06-2012 at 07:35 PM..
The problem with this case is that there were not any reliable witnesses (that we know about) because it was rainy & dark. I think Zimmerman is guilty of being an idiot who wanted to play hero, but I don't think his intent was to murder someone when he left his home that evening. However, we just don't know and probably never will. Manslaughter is probably the appropriate charge. There are times I wonder if he approached Martin and, when he didn't get the cooperation he wanted, he threatened him with a gun, but we have no idea if that actually happened. After listening to the audio tapes of his interviews, I feel Zimmerman's credibility is very questionable, to say the least. Still, without evidence, I don't see how the prosecution can convince a jury he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.
Nancy, I respectfully disagree. You don't always need "eye witnesses" in these cases. Circumstantial evidence can be very strong and very convincing. I think there is a chance that Zimmerman will be convicted of something. Juries are "every-day people" and they use their everyday common sense when deliberating. You never know what they are going to do!
Court is never about finding the absolute truth. It's about proving someone is guilty of breaking the law within the Rules of Criminal Procedure. That's why the verdict forms say "guilty" or "not guilty"........there is no "innocence" form of verdict and that's because we can only discover and know what we know from whatever evidence we have and is allowed under the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the law. Innocent people sometimes get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, just as guilty people go free.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 12-06-2012 at 07:51 PM..
The one sent to the defense is exactly as you describe. It's also missing 1/2 of the interview. The defense has been asking Crump & the prosecution for a clear recording for months, but they have refused to cooperate. Here is the motion to compel filed by O'Mara last week. You should read it, it documents all of the trouble they have had getting discovery from the prosecution.
Crump won't even confirm that this witness is not a minor. He lied about that, and O'Mara found she was an adult. But he has to have confirmation before scheduling the disposition due to the different rules about minors vs. adults. And the prosecution edited out her age in the first statement they released to the defense. Why are they hiding basic things like a witness's age? The defense shouldn't have to fight for basic details like that.
Brentwoodgirl, unless Mr. Crump is attorney of record for DD, NONE OF THIS STUFF ABOUT HOW DIFFICULT IT WAS TO GET HIM TO TURN OVER THE TAPE RECORDING WILL COME UP IN THE TRIAL. IT WOULD BE IRRELEVANT. If he is the attorney of record for DD, and there is something in the recording he made which will be used in court, then Mr. Crump will have to take the stand and testify about taping the conversation and what he did to preserve that recording. Btw, do you have any idea whether or not Mr. Crump put DD under oath when he interviewed/questioned her initially?
This kind of fight over stuff happens ALL THE TIME in these kinds of high profile cases and serious felony cases. This is NOT UNUSUAL.
As much as you are convinced that the State and Crump are hiding something by not turning over the tape, and that that is "wrong," it is still a question to be resolved in a pre-trial hearing by the Court according to the law. Mr. Crump cannot work for the State on this case beyond representing his client, if DD is in fact his client.
The problem with this case is that there were not any reliable witnesses (that we know about) because it was rainy & dark. I think Zimmerman is guilty of being an idiot who wanted to play hero, but I don't think his intent was to murder someone when he left his home that evening. However, we just don't know and probably never will. Manslaughter is probably the appropriate charge. There are times I wonder if he approached Martin and, when he didn't get the cooperation he wanted, he threatened him with a gun, but we have no idea if that actually happened. After listening to the audio tapes of his interviews, I feel Zimmerman's credibility is very questionable, to say the least. Still, without evidence, I don't see how the prosecution can convince a jury he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.
you are stating something that hasn't even been shown yet to be true.
we have no idea who intercepted whom yet.
wasn't trayvon on a cell phone? why didn't HE call the police? or did he? (again, i wasn't there so i don't know all the facts that are going to be put out there yet)
When a person of reasonable intelligence looks at the footpath of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and takes into account the *recorded* phone conversations, it's pretty clear who intercepted whom. The fact that someone doesn't have a recording on their i-Phones doesn't mean squat. You don't have to have absolute proof that Zimmerman intercepted Martin; the jury will consider the facts as they are presented. And those facts will clearly show that Zimmerman identified Martin from his vantage point, that Martin continued to pass his vantage point but then noticed that he was being followed and then sprinted in the direction of his home. He was not in between the rows of residences until he began fleeing Zimmerman's pursuit. When Zimmerman and Martin finally encountered each other face to face, it was further up the road - away from where Zimmerman originally saw Martin and closer to Martin's temporary residence. That meant that Zimmerman intercepted Martin. It's simple logic.
As for why Martin didn't call the police? Who says he's required to do so?
"SELF DEFENSE"... nothing amazing about that, unless you have never heard of it.
Self defense is not an option to an aggressor, which Zimmerman clearly was. You can't just pick a fight with someone and then claim defense when they respond.
The idea of Z-man getting "anything" but the electric chair is amazing....
Nothing is ever that simple.
We don't use the electric chair in Florida anymore and this is not a death penalty case.
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.
That's really funny. Btw, how many trials have you worked?