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 ...
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Is this the eye witness you were referring to?
They act like this is a “case”, they even say it, “what are the forensics in this case?” I’m sorry, but have charges even been filed against Zimmerman? No. I don’t think so. Don’t believe that there will be charges filed, the media and race baiters have spun this so much to influence public opinion, when the details are clear that it was self defense.
I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I haven't viewed the video (rarely do - I wait for the transcripts) so I'm speculating that this is a witness who claims the police blew her off. I think it's a rehash of Cutcher, nothing new. Cutcher, by her early statements, didn't see the fight. She came on the scene AFTER shots were fired.
One shot fired ;-)
Sounds like the eyewitness account will be after the fact hit piece on Zimmerman!
I predict “Effing Colds” will come out of the woodwork claiming to be eyewitnesses.
That’s some pretty vague testimony.
I don't understand Banfield's "it did not go the way that she and her attorney thought."
This also sounds like a 911 call that hasn't been made public - at least I don't recall one with the phone held so the operator could hear the sounds of the fight.
CNN is being stingy with information on this witness - what does that tell you?
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I did. I was actually quite surprised at a difference in her account of what transpired the night that she saw what happened as Trayvon Martin was shot dead. Now earlier she has said to us that it was very difficult to make out what was going on, about 25 feet from her window.CNN - April 6, 2012
But one of the things she told us, John, was that the police did not seem interested in how much she wanted to tell them. She told us that she asked the police if she could take them to the location where it happened and kind of reenact a little bit about what she saw happen, and they seemed very disinterested and did not go to the location with her -- again, outside of her window. She also said that she had called 911 and that she talked to 911 all the way through this account, even holding the phone up to her window so that they could hear the yelling.
And then, John, surprisingly, she also said that this week, just two days ago, she's finally had a chance to talk to the state attorney, that officials from the state attorney's office have now finally shown up and asked her some questions. And it did not go the way that she and her attorney thought.
AVLON: Well, have police commented on this witness?
BANFIELD: No, not yet. Other than to say that they're not commenting on the case at all, because it's been taken over by the state attorney. One thing you might be surprised at, the state attorney has a varied job here, John. They've got a couple of jobs they have to do.
Number one, they have to look at the case itself. They're essentially taking over the investigation from the Sanford Police Department, but they're also looking into whether anything went wrong with the investigation with the Sanford Police Department. So, you would think that the interview would be very long, if you have an actual witness in the case.
And this person says she saw it all. Granted, it was a long way away, 25 feet, maybe not so long, and granted it was dark. But she did witness this incident play out. When I join you shortly, you're going to find out how long the interview actually was and what she and her attorney thinks about that.
AVLON: And there were multiple witnesses, right, Ashleigh?
BANFIELD: Hard to say. A lot of people, John, called 911. How many people had a vantage point? That's going to be critical.
Not every piece of information that's come out about this case has come out about this case. A lot of that could be protected and privileged information right now. It might be in the purview of the Sanford Police Department. It might be something that only the state attorneys know at this point.
One thing we can say for sure, a lot of people seem to think they know what transpired between these two parties the night that Trayvon Martin died. But clearly there's a lot we don't know.
Sure that’s not “Effing Crips”? /sarc
When Zimmerman actually said “F___ing cold” the media was saying he said something else.
Banfield alluded to the obvious - that the eye witness was now giving a more “robust” description in recent days than her original account. THAT is very interesting, given all the media conviction noise being used as red meat thrown to the radical reactionaries who react, seemingly, for a living.
BTW, Banfield started somewhere, got bumped to Court TV and having paid her dues, I take it, has a gig at CNN.
Anyone remember the details of her bouncing career? I kind of like her, so far, and she is very pretty, though taking up with CNN keeps me skeptical that my good opinion will be long lived.
Witness claims the yell was the younger person. Could not hear the words. Deeper voice was louder ...
It's going to be pretty funny if Zimmerman sounds like a soprano. We don't know which person has a deeper voice. Lots of speculation in this witnesses testimony.
Larger person on top - what is "larger?"
I think this is an old account - meaning we've heard of it before. I won't be surprised if this is Cutcher. CNN is protecting the identity, witness didn't express pleasure at the interview with state attorney, who would have a record of he previous encounter with police (Cutcher refused to give a statement).
Risible text at the CNN link ...
This eyewitness account brings us closer to understanding what really happened. We at AC360 have been trying our best to stick to what is knowable about the case, and discard what can only qualify as speculation.
IMO police didn't need her comments about the fight because they had a better closer witness. Who already had given them their statement.
We've talked about surprises. If I were there with my cell I would have recorded it......Hmmmm?
Can't get the calls to come up tonight. IIrC it's call 3.
Martin had Zimmerman by at least 3” and possibly 5”
More pure speculation on my part. As time elapses, Cutcher is making shit up. CNN has no way to correlate this witness with any particular 911 call. So, Cutcher senses 15 minutes of fame coming on, but only if she has a story to tell.
I agree with you, the police have better evidence. Not that they don't want to hear from others, but at some point it becomes repetitive; or the person provides a confused (internally inconsistent) account, etc.
I'm looking for earlier news reports that include a remark about "larger man." I know I saw that before tonight, attributed to an eyewitness.
Watching the video, the reporter is acting like a prosecutor, trying to get the witness to says things that just weren’t true. For instance, the witness makes it very clear early on that she could not understand any of the words of either of the two men in the confrontation. Yet the reporter keeps asking loaded questions trying to get her to say, essentially, that Zimmerman was making aggressive and racist statements to Martin. She also was trying to get the witness to say that the police didn’t care about anything she said, but the witness insisted that the police did ask her to tell them everything she heard and observed. The reporter didn’t like that and seized on the witness’s statement that she offered to go show the police where exactly the two were standing, but they said she didn’t need to. The reporter was definitely trying to prove a specific spin on the story.
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.