Skip to comments.Witnesses Back Up Zimmerman's Account Of Attack In Trayvon Martin Shooting, Police Say
Posted on 03/27/2012 5:32:25 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the neighborhood watch volunteer who eventually shot to death the unarmed 17-year-old, then climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities told The Orlando Sentinel.
That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities said.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...
It is entirely possible that Zimmerman continued to look for Martin and found him. One could argue that this is more likely since we know that Zimmerman was following and we know that Martin avoided a confrontation by running away.
You are dead wrong. While possible your scenario is unlikely. After Zimmerman lost Martin it was more likely that Martin approached Zimmerman as Martin was the first to speak (read the transcript). It would also be consistent with Zimmerman’s statement (please don’t bog me down with your self serving statement nonsense). At the end of the day the burden is not on Zimmerman to disprove speculative scenarios. It would be on prosecutors (or illiterates like yourself) to prove that his statement is false.
Not true. Martin was on the cell phone to his girlfriend when the confrontation started. She claims she recorded the conversation.
...She said the next thing she heard was Martin saying, Why are you following me? Then, Crump said, she heard another voice presumably Zimmermans saying, What are you doing around here?... (From: 'HE'S RIGHT BEHIND ME')
Since she says she heard Martin speaking to Zimmerman first, then Martin was the one initiating the confrontation.
As evidence her statement has no value...it is unsubstantiated hearsay.
And, I would be careful about using her statement...it has zimmerman still following martin, not returning to his truck.
There we go again...
So, you're saying that when she's called to the stand to testify about what she said and heard on the phone, then this is hearsay.
Is that what you're saying?
Why do you think that?
But, without third party corroboration anything she deduces from the sounds she heard, such as her statement that it sounded like martin got pushed down, would not be allowed or would be challenged by the defense along the lines of; "couldn't the sound also be martin punching zimmerman?
That is what I mean by it being without value.
If Martin's GF did record the call and it does say that which she says it does then Zimmerman is toast. Zimmerman's statement that he was on his way back to his truck and got jumped would go out the window. Since his last comments about Martin on his recorded call were that he ran and that Zimmerman didn't know where he was, then why would martin say to the girl that he was being followed again?
Now, if the call was not recorded, I would be interested in learning the timing of two things...when did the girl call the lawyer with her account of the call...and when did the Martin family first hear the Zimmerman call?
What the girl says very closely mirrors the Zimmerman tape. If the girl gave her rendition to the lawyer before she could have heard the tape then it will be considered as factual, corroborated by the tape.
If her conversation with the lawyer took place after the tape was heard by the Martins then it would be argued that her rendition was tailored to fit the tape's narrative.
What that means is he's driving along, then doing stuff, then getting out of his car, and it's not one big long record of events. He's calling them back, or they are calling him ~ none of it on the '911" number, but on a different number that does not trigger the GPS feature in his cellphone.
That means no one will know where he is exactly, and he rather validates that when he tells the dispatcher that when the cops get there (at the clubhouse) they should call him and he'll tell them where he is.
That can be interpreted as evasion on his part ~ quite literally ~ he's even evading the GPS feature.
Sure, he has every legal right to do that, but evasion is evasion and for some ~ e.g. bill collectors, trained criminal investigators, insurance adjusters, etc. evasion is a sign that your correspondent is not being upfront with you and that you should dig deeper).
In the end the lead investigator with the Sanford police department wanted to hold him. I share that view.
Even his own attorney has said this was a simple case of self defense, not a "stand your ground' situation ~ at least in the case of his client.
Think what that means when your own lawyer doesn't cut you as much slack as the state's attorney is prepared to do(his office said to let the guy go ~ which is justified under the stand your ground portion of the self defense act but not necessarily the others in those cases where lethal force has been used.
Sorry for sounding so PRO-POLICE in this comment, but that's the way it is.
The cops wanted to hold your boy.
That part is certainly evidence. What she says she said is certainly evidence. What she says Trayvon says can be challenged depending on what she says he said.
What I wonder is when this young woman will be invited to the Nancy Grace show ~ they have something in common ~
....What that means is he’s driving along, then doing stuff, then getting out of his car, and it’s not one big long record of events. He’s calling them back, or they are calling him ~ none of it on the ‘911” number, but on a different number that does not trigger the GPS feature in his cellphone.
That means no one will know where he is exactly, and he rather validates that when he tells the dispatcher that when the cops get there (at the clubhouse) they should call him and he’ll tell them where he is.
That can be interpreted as evasion on his part ~ quite literally ~ he’s even evading the GPS feature.....
Another ridiculous biased statement by you. Do you call 911 to report a suspicious person or do you call the non emergency number? No crime in progress-He gives his location he gives his home address and stated he lived in the complex along with his street address and phone number. (are you still denying that?). As for GPs how accurate is it ? what cell carrier did he have?and as for trespassing issue, it was not about him it was about the news media::
The GF describing what Martin said to her on the phone, or what she heard on the phone, is not hearsay and I defy you to prove, with authoritative cites, that it is.
She may testify to both what Martin said, as well as what other voices picked up by the telephone's mic. She may legally say, this was Martin's voice. This was not Martin's voice. She can also describe the change in tone she heard. She may not speculate as to the cause of the change in tone.
Testimony can always be challenged. But, the reason for the challenge will determine whether it is sustained or overruled.
If you're saying that the testimony can be challenged because it's hearsay, then I defy you to provide an authoritative cite that supports your assertion, i.e.: someone on the phone cannot testify about what the other party on the phone said to them.
Have a nice day.
Yeah. Defy. You can look up the definition of that word while you're looking up the definition of the word, 'hearsay'.
You claimed that the GF could not testify about what she heard Martin say on the phone because that would be considered hearsay.
Her statements of what Martin said fall under the legal definition of hearsay...
You said it. Now prove it.
I"d think any challenges would occur where what she says was happening differs from what the 911 calls tell us was happening ~ time line sort of things.
She had nothing to say about the shooting.
I"m with the local cops on this one ~
You are misreading or misunderstanding something. If the conversation was broken off the tape and transcript would indicate that and there would be a new tape and transcript of the new conversatio).
You are misreading or misunderstanding something. If the conversation was broken off the tape and transcript would indicate that and there would be a new tape and transcript of the new conversation.