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.
Why the court over-ruled taking the jury to the site of the incident is beyond me. If the goal is truth and justice, it would have helped immensely for the jury to have seen exactly what vantage point some witnesses had, and to see that the body was about 35 feet from where Zimmerman claims the fight was.
Have them go into witnesses apartments and actually stand where the witness stood, and hear the witnesses recorded testimony.
Take them there at night for Pete's sake, and take Zimmerman's and Trayvon's real clothes there so the jury can see what they looked like in the dark, replicating the lighting conditions during that night as much as possible.
I agree. That was a defense motion and the state opposed it. So obviously the state felt like the jury seeing the scene would have been bad for their case.
In one he said that Martin was circling the car in the other he didn't. There are quite a few. I don't have a list in front of me, sorry.
In the dispatch tape, IIRC he said something to the effect that M approached his car and was walking around it. Not sure that he made a full circle or simply came up towards him and say did say a half circle around the car. Either would be a bit, well, odd, wouldn't you think? So after many posts by yourself and other posters...I would hope you have more than that to fall back on.
The Court Reporter's transcript is the OFFICIAL RECORD of what was said verbatim in the court room. When a deposition is taken, the Court Reporter's transcript is also the OFFICIAL RECORD of what was said. The witness in a deposition has a right to read the transcript after the court reporter has prepared it in order to determine whether or not the court reporter made any mistakes in transcribing what the witness said. It's called the right to read and sign. The signature of the witness means they've read the transcript and either made corrections or found none. Of course the witness can also waive that right, but I'd be really surprised if Rachel gave a deposition that any attorney would advise her to waive her right to read and sign.
So, yes, someone can and probably already has transcribed the English words Rachel said on the stand. As for "translation," no, a "translation" would be very subjective and certainly nothing a jury could consider, and after all, what matters is how the jury understood her testimony. Maybe the Hispanic/Black juror understood her better than most people here on this thread seems to have understood; of course, having a negative bias about her would tend to cause folks to not understand what she said.
What Jazz quoted was from the transcription. But that loose collection of English words...can hardly be taken as spoken English language. Her testimony makes it really, really difficult to understand what she was trying to say, or what her testimony actually implied. So it would be really nice to see a summary where her grunts, mumbling and profanity was condensed into a few coherent sentences so articulate people has a decent idea what she testified to.
Too bad the jury can't just demand a lie detector test on Zimmie in open court.
Hell, make that for all witnesses taking the stand, too.
Real time.
Too bad the jury can't demand that all lawyers involved be water boarded until GZ tells the truth. To be fair bring Dee DEE back and water board lawyers until she tells the truth also.
LOL
Folks this is gonna take a while....
I agree. That was a defense motion and the state opposed it. So obviously the state felt like the jury seeing the scene would have been bad for their case.
It was the judge's decision. She said it would be "a logistical nightmare."
Do juries typically visits the crime scene and how is it handled? I can't believe they let the prosecution or defense talk to jury there and point things out. Somebody drives them through the neighborhood without commentary? They are let out of the bus without commentary? Residents are told to stay indoors and not go into their yards??
The police gave Zimmerman a lie detector test. He passed.
"He may have convinced himself that he was in fear of his life, but whether or not he was is not definitive," Grenier said.
Zimmerman's responses would be more meaningful, he said, if he had been asked, " 'Did Trayvon Martin attack you and knock you to the ground?' Or 'Was Trayvon Martin on top of you hitting you before you shot him?' "
Joe Navarro, a former FBI agent who teaches interviewing techniques at Saint Leo University, agreed. "You have to ask precise questions," he said. "You want to know at what point you feared for your life."
There needs to be a clear, consistent, and reasonable standard for provocation, or we open the door to a myriad of issues.
Also I expanded on my earlier post.
My husband and I were walking to a hotel in the downtown of a big city yesterday. A guy walking the other direction saw us, passed us, and then immediately turned and started following us. Soon after that he put his hand on my husband's shoulder. He was just a panhandler, but he made us nervous with the way he was acting.
If Team Trayvon was consistent, they would say my husband had every right to punch him and then climb on top and beat him some more. They wouldn't have seen this situation the same though, because the panhandler was black and my husband is white.
Because I am consistent, I think if my husband had beaten him and sat on him, the guy would have had a right to shoot my husband to save himself. The guy following close behind us did not give us license to hit him.
If you are wondering how the story actually ended, my husband walked the guy across the street and bought him something to eat.
In the dispatch tape, IIRC he said something to the effect that M approached his car and was walking around it. Not sure that he made a full circle or simply came up towards him and say did say a half circle around the car. Either would be a bit, well, odd, wouldn't you think? So after many posts by yourself and other posters...I would hope you have more than that to fall back on.
If someone circled my car I certainly wouldn't get out to go follow him. I would think that most people wouldn't.
It was the judge's decision. She said it would be "a logistical nightmare."
Do juries typically visits the crime scene and how is it handled? I can't believe they let the prosecution or defense talk to jury there and point things out. Somebody drives them through the neighborhood without commentary? They are let out of the bus without commentary? Residents are told to stay indoors and not go into their yards??
If the judge or state was interested in a FAIR trial, they would do as was proposed. Bring the jury out to the site, walk them through the scene at night and in the rain, and let them see what M, Z and the various witnesses saw. Spend the time at the T as in Zs recorded phone call. As suggested, have someone wearing both Ms and Zs clothing on the path, simulating the fight that Jones witnessed. And see if it all makes sense, if the colors of the clothing is differentiable and if it can be told who is lighter and darker skinned. Relate the position of Ms house vs where the T and altercation took place.
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.
