Posted on 04/12/2012 6:26:26 PM PDT by dewawi
That face could keep the vampires away.
Saving your comment because I agree completely. We shall see!
I’m curious as to why no one has made mention of the fact? that it appears after hearing portions of the 911 call, that the dispatcher asked Zimmerman - “which way is he running” - well that is basically the same as the dispatcher IMO telling/asking Zimmerman to “follow” and tell me where/which direction the “suspicious” person is heading - shortly after that question was put to Zimmerman you can hear an out of breath/heavy panting Zimmerman (because he ran? to “follow” so as to find out which direction the kid was going so he could reply to dispatchers question?) dispatcher hears him out of breath and asks if he following... yes...”we don’t need you to...” “OK” says Zim and he was probably glad he could finally stop ... but he told dispatcher he “lost him and had no idea where he was now”. My Conjecture - kid circled around thru the walkways and snuck up on Zimmer... catching him unawares as he headed back to his vehicle...so now we have a young, athletically fit teen confronting older out of shape and still trying to catch his breath male... just my take on things
[[The testimony of the mother as to the voice crying for help will be contradicted by Zimmerman’s family and friends]]
It will also contradict hte father’s testimony that the voice was definately not hisw son’s voice
Wasn’t he moving away from his house?
[[A prosecutor’s job is not to win a conviction at all costs, but rather to *uncover the truth*
Therefore, why would the prosecution even *attempt* to discredit an eyewitness?]]
Why would the prosecutor pray with hte martins, and why would the prosecutor declare that ‘justice for trayvon’ is what is being sought? Doesn’t sound like her objective is to ‘find hte truth’
[[A prosecutor’s job is not to win a conviction at all costs, but rather to *uncover the truth*
Therefore, why would the prosecution even *attempt* to discredit an eyewitness?]]
Why would the prosecutor pray with hte martins, and why would the prosecutor declare that ‘justice for trayvon’ is what is being sought? Doesn’t sound like her objective is to ‘find hte truth’
It’s a little over eight tenths of a mile away.
I think it will be damned hard to comvince a jury of guilt given all of this:
http://www.wagist.com/
I think it will be damned hard to comvince a jury of guilt given all of this:
http://www.wagist.com/
yes- he was moving i nthe oposdite direction
I beleive when he followed zimmerman who was headed back to his truck to leave the scene to meet with the police when martin attacked him- the kid was apaprently less than 20 seconds away from his own father’s home, but decided NOT to go there and instead turned around and confronted zimerman which was asd we know a fatal mistake for the punk- and I say punk, because it is now pretty clear that martin could have avoided the hwole hting by just heading toward his fathers house but decided apaprently that he was ‘gopign to teach zimmerman a lesson’ and ifact apparently told zimmerman he was goign to kill him- he acted like a punk, and payed the price by picking on someone that was actually able to defend himself agaisnt a punk
If this is to be the evolution of justice, it would make no sense to ever call the police. Plain ol vigilante justice will be the only way to remain safe.
I flip thru the channels and I hear this Nancy Grace woman just totally convinced Zimmerman is the epitome of evil - like she isn’t even listening to any reason. Can someone give me some insight into why she is so whacked out about this?
All very good points.
I am curious about the alleged phone call with the girl friend. In the affidavit, Martin’s actions and feelings about what was happening are described based on this alleged call. Now I’m assuming there is some verification of a call having been made (although I’ve not read about it). Have you read if Zimmerman ever mentions that Martin is on his phone when Zimmerman is talking to the 911 operator?
I have not seen that Zimmerman makes any note of that. Have you?
Not exactly lying but very loose with the facts. They use hearsay evidence from Martin’s girlfriend, assume that Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher’s advice (which they deceptively made to sound like an order) and took the mother’s word that it was Martin screaming, while his father originally said it was not his son. They assume that Zimmerman confronted Martin when there is no evidence of it. Zimmerman’s only response to the dispatcher’s advice was okay.
The dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that”.
That seems to be the consensus with most of the legal panels.
When seconds count the police are minutes away.
In the affidavit it says Zimmerman “profiled” Martin. Interesting, I thought only the police could legally be charged with profiling anyone...he may have been biased against him due to his perceived race but to say he profiled him is not a valid legal argument in my opinion.
In fact, the only bias shown on the tape recording is he was biased against punks and assholes.
I always thought hearsay evidence was inadmissable.
But...but...the official "narrative" is that the dispatcher "told him not to do that". Apparently they don't seem to understand that a court of law is not a network newscast.
Law and facts are irrelevant to Zimmerman’s case. He must and will be convicted. Zimmerman’s conviction is too important not to occur.
Nancy never heard of a defendant, that she didn’t think was guilty as hell.
Is it normal for an affidavit to be so slanted? It asserts that Martin "was not committing a crime." Yes, at the moment, but he was behaving in such a way that a reasonable observer might suspect he was planning to commit a crime (burglary). It should be easy enough to establish whether the neighborhood had in fact experienced several recent burglaries--the affidavit assumes that Zimmerman is imagining the danger (based on his assumed prejudices against people who look like Trayvon).
The statement that "Zimmerman confronted Martin" seems to be conjured out of thin air. Zimmerman claims Martin confronted him, and no witness saw anything other than that.
Does Zimmerman get to have impartial experts determine that the voice calling for help is his, or would it be racist to question the assertion of Trayvon's sweet mother?
That’s why I wonder how long the girlfriend had between the killing and when she was questioned, to learn what was known about the incident and think up details that would make it sound like Trayvon was being pursued.
I’m guessing the girlfriend said something like, “Go get him!” or worse.
According to the girlfriend, his cell phone was in his pocket and Trayvon was wearing a headset, so it was not necessarily noticeable that Trayvon was speaking on the phone.
I thought the dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to do that”. Basically the same thing, though.
Her testimony, truthful or not, is not hearsay. She was a primary witness, albeit subject to the limits of telephony and the length of the call.
Hearsay doesn't refer to the human ear. What the ear hears is admissible, if the ear was listening to an actual event. Hearsay is second-hand accounts. So and so told me such and such is not admissable, whether by ear or by email, letter or whatever.
Leave it to Florida to screw this up....They can’t even count votes with major chaotic issues.
Excellent question!
What I recall reading is that Benjamin Crump took her deposition shortly after the incident, in preparation for ginning up the lynch mob. But, amazingly, the Man didn't talk to her until Corey took over the case. It will be most interesting to see how her account "evolved" between the those two points in time.
No, the prosecutor is a an arrogant idiot, who instead of having a brief news conference, instead made a major production out of it, and proceeded to give a long speech.
All this as she's smiling and winking at her media and government employee friends in the audience..
The prosecutor Corey, is a freaking moron.
The affidavit didn't even say how they knew Martin attempted to run home. Was this what the person/friend of Martin said who was not even present or a witness?
Is this a joke?
"ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life."
"The lawyer said he would give the details of the phone call to the federal investigation."
So it appears that the girl is giving this account to ABCNews and Crump about three weeks after the incident, and that Crump is writing the interview up into a statement to give to investigators.
Of course any ABCNews article cannot be taken as objective, especially by Matt Gutman.
Was this a "reenactment" of an earlier account given to Crump by the girl, or the first time? If it was the former, it is sleazy of ABCNews to suggest otherwise, but then again ABCNews is sleazy.
Cow clown
This one could be on a twilight zone episode. Call it the "Rubber mask".
Maybe it was 0bamaz son on the recording.
To the extent the prosecution uses her to testify to a declaration that Trayvon made in order to prove the matter asserted in the declaration that would be hearsay. Such as "Trayvon told me on the phone it was raining" in order to prove to the jury that it was raining.
An example of such a statement I expect the prosecution to introduce would be her testimony that Trayvon told her that he was being followed, in order to establish the fact that Trayvon was following her.
Nevertheless, even though some of these statements may be literally hearsay, I expect the court to allow all or nearly all of these statements into evidence under the residual exception if necessary.
I meant to write “in order to establish the fact that Zimmerman was following Trayvon”.
What she heard in terms of struggle is not hearsay.
See my post in 90.
The dying declaration exception does not appear relevant.
What I recall reading is, she said the call dropped before she heard anything other than words being exchanged.
If Zimmerman initiated the fisticuffs, she should have heard quite a lot, judging by what turned up on the 911 audio, recorded from much further away.
On the other hand, if Martin pressed End before setting about messing up the Man, she would have heard just about what she heard.
Might as well get some facts before you use it as a negative. The dispatcher carries no legal authority. Following their advice, from an insulated deaf and blind distance, can and probably has gotten the good guys killed. If some goon is coming at you or yours, and you're trying to give a 911 operator the dope on it, would you listen to them if they told you your best best was to drop to the ground and roll in a ball, vs. shooting their ass? Unless you can say yes to that, stop convicting a guy with nonsense. (I know you didn't actually convict him, but that kind of uneducated opinion is exactly what the haters will try to use when real evidence won't get the job done.)
What don’t you understand about the definition of HEARSAY. Legally AND technically it is HEARSAY; She HEARD what he SAID. She is reiterating what she heard TRayvon say to Zimmerman. HEARSAY!
They don’t technically care a whiff about stand your ground laws, per second. Instead, what they see here is a wedge issue that they think they can use to drive up voter turnout for this fall’s elections. This will be the issue that every candidate has to choose sides on in the fall campaign. Liberal, even those who fully supported the law when it was passed, will line up against it and the narrative will be that President Obama is the sensible candidate who is against these racist and dangerous stand your ground laws.
Per second = per se.
I don't think so. What Obama needs is to build up guilt in the stupid white voters and so far he and the media are doing a great job without riots. There are very few people who read what we do and understand Zimmerman's innocence. Most people believe the media and think Z is guilty of profiling and murder.
Angela Corey “We don’t “usually” prosecute by public pressure or petition. But in this case we have made an exception. We believe the Sanford police department is full of incompetents who let murderers roam free for no reason. We do not want black people rioting around the streets of Florida so we decided to charge George even though there are witnesses, facts, and evidence to prove he was defending himself” this is what she really meant at the press conference
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.