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.
when you listened to the recording of DeeDee's deposition, did you hear someone putting her under oath, asking her to swear to tell the truth, etc, and did the attorneys present at the depo identify themselves? Was Zimmerman's attorney present at that deposition? Did he ask any questions? Were there any exhibits entered?
I am still finding it totally amazing that the State would take the deposition of their own witness. That's just NOT the way these things normally go.
Maybe you're right that it isn't called a 'deposition.' It might be called a 'sworn statement' given to Assistant State Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, an investigator for the State Attorney's Office, and some agents from the FDLE. I know BDLR put her under oath. GZ's lawyer wasn't there. Would that be called a 'sworn statement' or interview rather than a deposition ?
I don't have a link handy; may have been in the May discovery.
Maybe you're right that it isn't called a 'deposition.' It might be called a 'sworn statement' given to Assistant State Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, an investigator for the State Attorney's Office, and some agents from the FDLE. I know BDLR put her under oath. GZ's lawyer wasn't there. Would that be called a 'sworn statement' or interview rather than a deposition ?
I don't have a link handy; may have been in the May discovery.
Yes, that's a sworn statement. It does not carry the weight that a deposition does because defense counsel is not present and cannot cross examine the witness. A sworn statement is sort of the equivalent of an affidavit.
A deposition is a formal proceeding whereby counsel for both sides are present, a court reporter is present to record the verbatim testimony of the witness; the witness is put under oath. The attorney who filed the Notice of Taking Deposition first does direct examination of the witness. Then the opposing counsel can cross examine. After the deposition is finished and transcribed the witness has the right to read the deposition for mistakes the court reporter may have made, like typos, or misunderstand a word, but the witness CANNOT change the testimony. Or the witness can waive that right. Then the deposition can be used at trial to impeach the witness on the witness stand if the testimony at trial contradicts the testimony given in the deposition.
I looked at the court file online and did not seen a Notice to Take Deposition by the State of anyone named DeeDee or anything similar.
Is there a transcript of that sworn statement in the court file? I couldn't fine it.
What case? You never contribute anything of value to this thread. Seems your whole routine is a laughing emoticon and attempts at insults which have NOTHING to do with the case. Your posts are useless.
Okay. My sources for no Trayvon DNA on the gun. I thought the site said no Trayvon DNA at all on anything.
there's no relevancy with DNA on the gun...
when a person is in fight/flight mode, the body bleeds less. also, when the weather is cold, the body also bleeds less. depending on the caliber of the bullet and where the person is shot, they can also bleed less.
my home defense gun is a smaller caliber. if i use a shot gun, then it would be a mess cleaning up brain particles off my wall. a smaller 5.7x28 is just the right size to hit vital spots and not worry about cleaning up a blood trail. unfortunately, once the person dies, blood just lets go and spreads like a faucet (don't ask how i know).
there's no relevancy with DNA on the gun...
when a person is in fight/flight mode, the body bleeds less. also, when the weather is cold, the body also bleeds less. depending on the caliber of the bullet and where the person is shot, they can also bleed less.
my home defense gun is a smaller caliber. if i use a shot gun, then it would be a mess cleaning up brain particles off my wall. a smaller 5.7x28 is just the right size to hit vital spots and not worry about cleaning up a blood trail. unfortunately, once the person dies, blood just lets go and spreads like a faucet (don't ask how i know).
The relevancy would be that Zimmerman SAID that Martin grabbed for the gun and they struggled for the gun and that's the issue. Why wasn't there any DNA from Martin on the gun???
I provided my source for that statement about the DNA, repeated below. Here is another one.
I think we're talking about 2 different things. First of all, I haven't read most of the details of the case in 6 months. Second, none of us are forensic scientists and can only make conclusions based on what we've read in the news, since there hasn't been a trial.
The reason I said "I read the same thing" is I was referring to the lack of blood on Zimmerman after he claimed Martin's body was directly on top of him when he fired his gun. I guess I look at the evidence you mentioned and interpret it a little differently. After all, a tiny mixture blood containing the DNA of both men could mean anything. I'm not a forensic scientist, but doesn't blood spray? Also, if you handled a body while he was on the ground, couldn't you transfer the DNA to your clothing?
I'm not arguing or disagreeing with either of you, but I didn't read "a mixture of DNA" as being any conclusive.
What case? You never contribute anything of value to this thread. Seems your whole routine is a laughing emoticon and attempts at insults which have NOTHING to do with the case. Your posts are useless.
I agree, and it's not just because if this case. If someone writes an opinion like "I think Joe's diner has good food and is reasonably priced" and another poster writes "You're an idiot" and adds an emoticon, it isn't helpful to anyone who wants to know if Joe's is a good place to eat. People who cannot debate civilly and need to insult others who share alternate views on issues contribute nothing to the conversation.
Since we are all posting sources, here's an opinion about the blood evidence from a law blog.
[URL="http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/05/21/dna-and-gsr-update-on-george-zimmerman-case/"]Summary of DNA and GSR Evidence[/URL]
"No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin are found on both lower sleeves suggesting that Trayvon was not beating Zimmerman."
"Marilyn, who comments at my law blog, suggested Zimmerman was restraining Martin by gripping his clothing with one hand and fired the gun with the other as Martin was attempting to get away. This could explain how the upper part of both items of clothing could have been pulled down as well as a few inches away from Martin’s chest when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot. It also might explain how Zimmerman’s blood might have gotten on the shirt, but not the hoodie."
Again, people can draw their own conclusions, and even experts in their field often disagree. Remember the car trunk in the Casey Anthony case and the different reports about decomposition?
"No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin are found on both lower sleeves suggesting that Trayvon was not beating Zimmerman."
"Marilyn, who comments at my law blog, suggested Zimmerman was restraining Martin by gripping his clothing with one hand and fired the gun with the other as Martin was attempting to get away. This could explain how the upper part of both items of clothing could have been pulled down as well as a few inches away from Martin’s chest when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot. It also might explain how Zimmerman’s blood might have gotten on the shirt, but not the hoodie."
Again, people can draw their own conclusions, and even experts in their field often disagree. Remember the car trunk in the Casey Anthony case and the different reports about decomposition?
Sure, if GZ was just 'following' someone, but we know that's not the case. There are those recorded 911 calls after all. It's pretty simple: GZ chased a stranger in the dark with a loaded gun, which was technically legal...........
Actually I don't think even that is legal. I would think it would fall under stalking or harassment or assault. The legal definition of assault being "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."
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.
