Skip to comments.Video: Zimmerman's Lawyers React To Eyewitness Account
Posted on 04/06/2012 8:43:38 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
CNN's Ashleigh Banfield interviews George Zimmerman's lawyers, in reaction to an eyewitness account of the shooting.
(Excerpt) Read more at ac360.blogs.cnn.com ...
Notice the valley talk in transcript, like man, like....WOW.I'm gonna milk these fifteen minute like to sixteen or maybe like to eternity and beyond .
And she expects LeO to take her seriously. Like gee. I mean.
It's still the gap between hanging up from dispatcher and getting punched in face that needs a witness.....This one is like ....ummm ....a fail.
Witness, Zimmerman attorneys address key questions in Trayvon shooting - CNN - April 7, 2012
The witness declined to characterize her questioning by investigators as "in depth," instead saying "I just kind of told what I saw and heard."
She noted that when she offered to show the investigators where she saw the scuffle occur, she was told, "Nah, we don't need to see it."
She added that two phone calls to the lead detective have gone unanswered.
Her attorney, Derek Brett, said a follow-up visit on behalf of the state attorney's investigation on Wednesday yielded only 15 minutes of questioning.
"It was very general," Brett said, adding that had he been in the investigators' position, he would have had her recount her story again.
You'd like to have one, but sometimes you have to piece together the most likely scenario with other evidence.
Zimmerman, armed, watching out for the neighbors, has called the cops. So, he decides he's going to punch Martin while waiting, but Martin gets the better of him ... yeah, sure.
Add it what we know about Zimmerman's conduct in numerous similar situations (suspicious people, he calls police), Zimmerman's cooperation with the investigation, etc. I'm trying to find contemporary evidence that cuts against Zimmerman's account, and the only things that appear are speculation/fantasy.
Fame works on different levels too. She thinks she’s an important witness. She likes teevee time (probably gets paid for it).
That’s the time period that the father or brother said there was evidence that the public was not privy to.
Hadn’t thought that she was getting paid....No doubt.
Wonder if she’ll use her TV time as part of her resume.
I give the information in tonight's AC360 witness program the same level of credibility as "no injury on Zimmerman" video of earlier in the week. Curious if it is a rerun of Cutcher, for sure, but other than that, this is just CNN being drama queen, itself.
For a kid a nice dinner is a big deal.
CNN is getting desperate to find someone to have on.
Notice which networks Zimmerman’s family and lawyers have gravitated toward.
Whew... Lame interview.
The CNN pig was doing everything she could to spin a picture of Zimmerman as a lying racist.
But then that’s why she’s at CNN.
Oh. Interesting! I didn’t know that about the effects of estrogen shortening the cords.
Better to go into the belly of the beast tho.
It’s funny how the “witness” and the CNN pig seemed to wordlessly agree that “the bigger man” who was “on top” was Zimmerman. Couldn’t a 6’2” 17-year old in a hoodie look “bigger” than Zimmerman? I mean, the “witness” admitted several times that “it was dark”.
Yeah, it sure sounds like Cutcher. She’s been all over the place giving interviews. By her own admission she didn’t see anything until after the shot was fired and her and her dingbat girlfriend went outside. I don’t know how many different stories she’s given. I have a feeling this new, more robust story was the result of the Martin family lawyer telling her that her original story was pretty much worthless. I wonder what witness “John” will say. He looked out the window after the shot was fired and saw Trayvon laying facing down and Zimmerman apparently on his feet. I wonder if he saw Cutcher and dingbat standing there, too. Cutcher is a very dangerous witness because she’ll say anything whether it’s true or not.
Maybe angling for a media job once this witness gig runs out.
That’s possible, but she pretty much lost any credibility with her initial interviews. But I think she’s a left wing lesbian with a grudge against Zimmerman- or men in general. If it is Cutcher, it’s actually pretty bizarre CNN is now hiding her identity because of her new more robust story. I mean, she did an open interview with Anderson Cooper right before he went and had his nails done.
All it will take is some idiot killing Zimmerman, and these idiots should all be held as accomplices.
Think how swollen your hands get if you continually rub them together. Then picture the vocal chords swelling. Sometimes that produces hoarseness (If just the vocal chords swell). But other times, if the thyroid is swollen and presses against the voice box, it just limits the area that can vibrate which produces a higher pitch.(It can be accompanied with a hoarse sound) Either can result in nodules, which are basically callouses.
Always have student check their body temperature. If it averages in the 97.degree range it is a sign of thyroid problems. It's why people who talk a lot in their profession, and don't speak from the diaphragm, need a voice coach. Speaking from throat causes it to swell.
It was a joke. Well, sort of. She'd fit right in, because she's so good at fabricating details and jumping to conclusions.
-- I think she's a left wing lesbian with a grudge against Zimmerman- or men in general. --
Maybe just a softie. Heart goes out based on news reports (notice, her statements AFTER the news differ from those before; and at least one of her observation correlates what she saw with one of the OTHER 911 calls. She could not have heard that until after March 16th.
Not saying she isn't a flaming lib, or that she isn't a bi/homo, or that she isn't biased against men.
-- If it is Cutcher, it's actually pretty bizarre CNN is now hiding her identity because of her new more robust story. --
Hiding the witnesses identity does a few things, none of them "honest." It lets Cutcher change her story, and because CNN has conditioned the listener to think it's a new witness, one that hasn't made public remarks, the witness isn't impeaching her own testimony. It carries the possibility of increased ratings, for people hungry for new news from a new source.
At bottom, it's just more of "trial by media," against Zimmerman.
BANFIELD: More breaking news tonight only on 360, a key witness to the killing of Trayvon Martin who says police turned down what might have been important information about this case. She also talked about whose voice she heard that night crying for help, Martin's or his killer, George Zimmerman.
In addition that, Zimmerman's attorney advancing new and some say novel an explanation of their client's head injuries that night, shaken baby syndrome. And more new data in case that's already seemed packed with too much information and too few hard facts.
Nearly six weeks since George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin scuffled, we still really don't know what happened in the minute or so before it began. Did Martin stalk and sucker punch Zimmerman or did Zimmerman confront Martin?
Conflicting claims, but again, no hard facts. Was Zimmerman being beaten to within an inch of permanent brain damage, as his brother has said, or was the scuffle minor enough for Zimmerman to get up and walk around and then just minutes later seemingly walk around a police station unharmed?
We have got grainy videotape, but no medical records and no forensic proof yet as to who was actually crying out for help or who was on top when the deadly shot was fired between those two who were scuffling.
No clear answers which leaves the case open to interpretation, speculation, accusations, but again, no resolution, which is why 360 and Anderson have been doing their level best to stick to the facts while trying to expand what we really do know.
And that's how we will do it tonight starting off with one of the eyewitnesses, an actual eyewitness. We have already confirmed through our reporters and our producers on the ground that this witness does live in the complex and that she has spoken with police. She broke her silence on this program last week and she hasn't spoken with anyone else. So we're bringing her back because tonight, she's got a lot more to say. We spoke exclusively earlier this evening. And we're showing her in shadow to conceal her identity.
BANFIELD: When you heard those voices that night, can you characterize what kind of scream you heard?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, there was two as I say yelled for help and the first one was like just a very clear loud yell for help.
But it really is the second one that really always will stay with me. It was kind of almost like a yelp. It was like a devastating, dispirit type of yell for help. And even to a sense, it could even be -- possibly have been a cry.
BANFIELD: Did it sound like you could determine it was someone who was in his late 20s or someone who was in his late teens?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, from the very beginning and I still do feel that it was the young boy.
BANFIELD: And when you say young boy, do you mean a 17-year-old?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Sorry. I kind of -- not knowing either person, I kind think there was the boy and there was the man, because the boy was -- well, the person was 17. BANFIELD: Knowing now what you know, go back to that night. At the time, you didn't know how would anybody was in that struggle.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Correct.
BANFIELD: When you heard the yell, did you make a determination?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I definitely could tell that it was a younger, youthful voice than it was the deep voice that I heard when they were argue, and I heard them outside my window.
BANFIELD: Tell me more about the argument.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I didn't hear the words, but when I opened my window I could definitely hear someone arguing, someone yelling. It wasn't like someone was out there having a conversation.
BANFIELD: Were they both yelling?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I could still hear the younger -- I'm saying again, the younger person's voice, but really the other voice was the one that was more dominant and loud.
BANFIELD: The deeper voice was louder?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. BANFIELD: What was the younger voice saying and what kind of a context can you give me with regard to that part of the argument?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you could still hear the other person's voice, but just not as much as the person that was being the louder aggressor.
BANFIELD: Could you make out anything that was being said between them?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I could not. I just immediately knew that it was not somebody having a conversation. It was something very serious.
BANFIELD: It sounded like a confrontation?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
BANFIELD: Did it sound like one was being confronted and another was defensive or did it sound like both were confrontational?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would have to say both, but you just really hear that one louder, dominant voice more than you hear the other one.
BANFIELD: The older person's voice or the deeper voice?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Yes.
BANFIELD: Did you ever hear any racial slurs in that confrontation?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, because I did not hear any words, just arguing.
BANFIELD: Did the argument sound serious enough that you thought someone is going to get hurt here?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I knew there was something definitely wrong. Of course, then, when I saw it next, it was two men on the ground. So at that point I definitely knew there was something wrong and I needed to call.
BANFIELD: When you called 911, what did you tell them?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I told them that there was two men on the ground, something really horrible is happening.
BANFIELD: Did you talk to the dispatcher at the time that the gunshot went off?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I did.
BANFIELD: And what did the dispatcher ask you and what did you tell the dispatcher?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I kind of was watching and talking at the same time. And not really ever hearing what a gun sounds like in person, for me, it was more of a popping noise.
So I think in my mind, I'm thinking OK, that probably is a gunshot, but you're just in such disbelief that this is happening right outside your window.
BANFIELD: Did you tell the dispatcher I think I heard a gunshot?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
BANFIELD: And what did the dispatcher ask?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think I just said to him, I hear popping noises and I think it's a gunshot.
BANFIELD: Did the dispatcher ask for descriptions of what was going on as you were talking?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it was more that I was describing because it was like I'm watching a movie and I'm telling you on the phone, you know, exactly what I'm hearing. In fact, I even thought to myself, why am I telling him on the phone what's going on? Let me just take the phone and put it right up to the screen. Possibly he can even hear it.
BANFIELD: Is that what you did?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I did.
BANFIELD: You held your phone to the screen so the dispatcher could hear everything?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I did. But I'm not sure at what point I put it up, but I did tell him, I'm putting it up to the screen, maybe you can hear it.
BANFIELD: Where were you looking at the moment the gun fired?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was looking at the two men on the ground and heard the gunshot.
BANFIELD: Could you tell who was on the top, who was on the bottom?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know it was very dark, but I really would have to say that I thought it was the larger person that was on top.
BANFIELD: And when the gunfire went off, what happened to the larger man who you think might have been on the top? What happened at that moment?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I will just say a couple seconds later that larger man was walking closer to where I could see him.
BANFIELD: Before those couple of seconds at the moment the gunshot went off, what happened with the larger man?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, obviously the other man -- the boy was dead and the other person got up and was walking away from the body.
BANFIELD: When you first saw him coming towards you, could you see any blood on his face? Was it light enough for you to be able to see any blood on his face if there was any there?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was not light enough for me to see if there was any blood on the face.
BANFIELD: So there could have been, but it's just not something you could testify to?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I cannot testify because I did not see.
BANFIELD: Did he say anything?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was a man that came out with a flashlight who was a resident and they possibly were saying something to each other, but I could not hear what the words were.
BANFIELD: Your experience with the police that night, did they ask you any questions? Were they interested in hearing your account?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. The lead investigator came into my house with another police officer and I taped what I witnessed.
BANFIELD: What kind of questions did they ask you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just what I saw, what I heard.
BANFIELD: Did they seem -- did they seem interested? Were they in-depth in their questioning of you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not sure if I would say in-depth, just that I kind of told what I saw and heard.
I did offer to show them where I did see the incident, and they said, no, we don't need to see it.
BANFIELD: They weren't interested in you taking them to that location?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, they were not. * WITNESS: I did offer to show them where I did see the incident and they said, no, we don't need to see it.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: They were not interested in you taking them to that location?
WITNESS: No, they were not.
BANFIELD: Why do you suppose they weren't interested?
WITNESS: You have to ask them that.
BANFIELD: Were you surprised?
WITNESS: I don't know how investigators think.
BANFIELD: You offered to take them to the location where you saw them fighting?
BANFIELD: And they declined?
BANFIELD: In retrospect, are you surprised?
WITNESS: I can't answer either way.
BANFIELD: Did you get a feeling one way or another from these investigators things that they may have said to you while they were in your unit as to how this all unfolded?
WITNESS: Well, after I finished my taping and I still was feeling, you know, quite upset, I expressed that, you know, I'd never really forget those yells for help.
I wish I could have done something, you know, in retrospect and the lead investigator said to me kindly, he just said, "Well, if it makes you feel any better, the person that was yelling for help is alive."
BANFIELD: Since that time, the lead investigator, Chris Serino, has been reportedly -- an account of his says reportedly been to another resident who had a 10-year-old boy who called 911 that he didn't necessarily believe Mr. Zimmerman's story.
Does that surprise you?
WITNESS: Well, it was kind of bewildering to me at the time to think, wow, I really thought it was the boy crying for help, but here's the lead investigator, you know, telling me that, no, it was Mr. Zimmerman whom I know that name now.
BANFIELD: Where you saw the fight taking place, was there a hard surface anywhere nearby, a sidewalk or a street?
WITNESS: It's the back of the complex where homes -- the back of the homes were facing where it happened and there is a sidewalk. But when I watched it, they were always on the grass.
BANFIELD: How far away was the sidewalk?
WITNESS: I would say about four feet.
BANFIELD: So they were about four feet away from a hard surface?
BANFIELD: If Mr. Zimmerman said that his head was being slammed against the sidewalk and that he was trying to maneuver himself on to the grass, would that make sense according to what you saw?
WITNESS: Well, I can't speak for him. I just know from the time that I watched it was entirely on the grass.
BANFIELD: Were the police receptive to your attempts to fill them in on further details after this incident?
WITNESS: Well, we had the community meeting with everyone and my developments and the police officers came and said it was very critical. If anybody has anything to say and something that they witnessed. Actually they left their business cards on our doors and I just know me for, I called the lead detective twice and I still have not received a phone call back.
BANFIELD: Are you surprised by that?
WITNESS: I just thought that they would call me back.
BANFIELD: Again, a witness in the case of the shooting of Trayvon Martin afraid to show her identity, but at least speaking with us in silhouette to tell her story. As to the allegation that the Sanford police were not terribly interested in the re-enactment or at least a tour of the crime scene that she witnessed, the scene that she witnessed at altercation I should say. We called the police for their response to this, but we didn't get a call back. It was late at night in Florida as well.
But on another note, in one of the questions I mentioned in there. There was an eyewitness that I had said was 10 years old, in fact 13 years old so misspeaking there.
Moving on, after that interview, I also spoke with eyewitness' attorney, Derek Brett. He said something very interesting about the state attorney who by the way has finally just two days ago interviewed this witness.
So the state attorney watching over this case has finally decided this witness needs to be interviewed. It happened on Wednesday.
But Derek Brett, the attorney for this said what was unusual about the interview was the lack of thoroughness that he saw in the state's investigation. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BANFIELD: Did you feel confident that the state attorney was thorough in its questioning of your client?
DEREK BRETT, ATTORNEY FOR EYEWITNESS: If this was a first time questioning session, then I would be very concerned. These gentlemen had affidavits, an affidavit from my client from before.
They -- he had at least whatever notes have been taken by the lead Sanford investigator, which I could be critical of that investigation and that question. I can state that. But it's difficult to surmise exactly what the state attorney's office and their two investigators that called down from the Jacksonville state attorney's office actually knew at that point.
So do I think that there could have been other questions asked? Yes. Do I -- was I in any position to help them fill in the blanks or ask questions to my client? No, that's not my job. It's the job or investigator, even if it is necessary to reiterate questions.
Same fifteen minute blond?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.