The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

[Ranxerox]

The wounds don't look all that bad, and clearly, within a short time he was walking around without assistance or any notable sign of impairment. I have always wondered how he had grass stains on his back and injuries from concrete on the back of his head. The photo suggests a straight line across the back of his head, i.e., he may have suffered at least one strike on the edge of the sidewalk.

I don't think that we can say anything certain about the photos save that he does appear to have hit the back of his head with enough force to suffer bleeding. It also looks like there might be two different points of abrasion. How much blood is present in a single snapshot doesn't let us know if such was because of bleeding continued after an initial, partial clean-up, etc.

I think Fred is correct to note that the location of the altercation is going to be important to fully vet. He has made statements taken shortly after the event. If he can't make it fit together physically it will be damning.

Zimmerman is going to receive alot of coaching in re his demeanor, his presentation, etc., I don't see how the defense can keep him off the stand if they want to establish the state of mind necessary to float the self-defense explanation.

[galanter]

However you cut it, yesterday was a bad day for the prosecution. One of the more under reported exchanges was this (from CBS News):

"Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, grilled a state investigator on the stand.

Dan Gilbreath admitted under oath that prosecutors had many questions about the shooting they could not answer.

"Any evidence that conflicts, eyewitnesses anything, that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?" O'Mara asked.

"As to who threw the first blow? No," Gilbreath responded.

"Do you know who started the fight?"

"Do I know? No."

"Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?"

"No.""

The implication is that the State will have to contend that Zimmerman's non-violent actions leading up to the physical confrontation were sufficient to invalidate his claim to self-defense. I know some here agree with that, but it's a tougher sell than otherwise.

[fredrock]

So did GZ commit perjury?
Or was he just fine tuning his recollections to fit his version of things: implying he NOW recalls that TM seemed older and was possibly armed.
He's under oath, volunteering a statement.
And trying to shade things a bit it seems.



Zimmerman's words to Trayvon’s parents Friday were:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I’m sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.”

Those words conflict with a 911 call Zimmerman made moments before he shot and killed Trayvon.
**************************************************************
911 operator:

“How old would you say he [Trayvon] is?”

Zimmerman:

“He’s got something on his shirt.

“About like his late teens.”

911 dispatcher:

Late teens?

Zimmerman:

Uh, huh.

[Clyde]

Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. The affidavit says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

But Gilbreath also said Zimmerman's claim that Martin was slamming his head against the sidewalk just before he shot the teenager was "not consistent with the evidence we found." He gave no details.

Legal observers said the questioning of Gilbreath was strategically smart for O'Mara since the investigator's statements can be used at a later date to either contradict other testimony or be used to decide how to question other witnesses.

"I thought it was a really great thing to do," said Tom Mesereau, a Los Angeles attorney whose clients have included singer Michael Jackson and actor Robert Blake. "He used the hearing to get information that can only help his defense. What was supposed to be strictly a hearing for bail, he used it as a discovery device, and was able to nail the investigator into making very, very pointed statements about the investigation and about what evidence they have."

The questioning exposed some of the weaknesses in the state's case, said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. Attorney in Miami who is now in private practice.

"There are many miles left in this case but I think O'Mara helped the defense by eliciting those responses," Coffey said. "He is going to look for the chance to cross-examine that same investigator and ask him the same questions. If the investigator changes his story, he is going to lose credibility with the jury."

Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda dismissed any notion that the investigator's testimony chipped away at their case.

"You have not heard all of the evidence," de la Rionda said after the hearing. "Please be patient and wait for the trial."

[galanter]

The age discrepancy is not necessarily significant. He made the younger estimate from a distance in the dark. His older estimate referred to a later point in time when he was facing a significantly taller Martin close up.

[Conchis]

The age discrepancy is not necessarily significant. He made the younger estimate from a distance in the dark.

Fair enough

His older estimate referred to a later point in time when he was facing a significantly taller Martin close up.

How do we know that?

"You have not heard all of the evidence," de la Rionda said after the hearing. "Please be patient and wait for the trial."

But their investigator was asked point blank if they had any evidence pointing to who started the fight, and the guy said no. What evidence could possibly come in that they haven't already seen? This seems horribly damaging to the prosecution.

[galanter]

The age discrepancy is not necessarily significant. He made the younger estimate from a distance in the dark.

Fair enough

His older estimate referred to a later point in time when he was facing a significantly taller Martin close up.

How do we know that?

I believe he was responding to a couple questions that had come up days before in an interview with the parents regarding the confrontation. That's why he says these two specific things out of the blue. (Tried and failed to find a link to this though.) He mentioned the "a few years younger than me" in the same context as not knowing if Martin was armed. Also there is a total span of 10 years between them...reduce that by the few years younger and it's not all that much of a difference.

[fredrock]

Interesting article by a local columnist, which puts much emphasis on his personal timeline analysis. In it he points to a 2 1/2 minute "gap" (slightly but critically over-stated IMO) during which TM could/should have made it home safely, leading to the conclusion that TM must have doubled back and attacked GZ out of anger and frustration at being followed. It must have been his fault.
Certainly plausible; this was the accepted narrative until public outcry resulted in further investigation.
However, no such scrutiny was applied to GZ's conduct during that same time span.
He had only "run" across the street and along one of a few paths in the area, most likely the one leading toward the "T" for 30 seconds.
How much ground could he possibly have covered in that short span of time?
He claims to have cut off pursuit and set on a path back to his pickup. (Why do reporters continue to say "SUV"--trying to spiff up GZ's image perhaps?)
If he had done so, he should/would have been safely back in his vehicle waiting for the police, who arrived momentarily.
What was he doing all that time?
Others have posited that GZ continued along the straight path to the opposite roadway and then turned back.
If so, he was still pursuing TM.
If he had truly cut off searching for TM and was walking back to his truck, what was he doing 35+ yards up the backyard pathway heading away from his truck, to where the altercation and shooting eventually occurred.
Any way you view it, GZ was obviously "on the move/prowl".

The 2 1/2 minute clock applies to both actors here. To suppose the actions of one can be easily determined without considering the actions of the other is advocacy not serious inquiry.
What was GZ doing all this time?
Tell me true!!!

[Andrew.]

Zimmerman's been released on $150 000 bail.

[Clyde]

"You have not heard all of the evidence," de la Rionda said after the hearing. "Please be patient and wait for the trial."

But their investigator was asked point blank if they had any evidence pointing to who started the fight, and the guy said no. What evidence could possibly come in that they haven't already seen? This seems horribly damaging to the prosecution.

If the whole case hinges upon who threw the first punch and whatever escalation of force after that is deemed acceptable then I'd agree. I don't know if that's the case, I don't know what a judge might rule or how a jury might think. If that isn't the case then questions about whether Zimmerman reasonably feared for life, how reliable his story is, whether his initial chasing of Martin invalidated the SYG law, forensic evidence (e.g., the extent of his injuries, blood spatter, powder residue) might come into play. Obviously I have no idea what sort of evidence the prosecutors have so the above is merely speculation on my part.

[BClark]

However you cut it, yesterday was a bad day for the prosecution. One of the more under reported exchanges was this (from CBS News):

"Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, grilled a state investigator on the stand.

Dan Gilbreath admitted under oath that prosecutors had many questions about the shooting they could not answer.

"Any evidence that conflicts, eyewitnesses anything, that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?" O'Mara asked.

"As to who threw the first blow? No," Gilbreath responded.

"Do you know who started the fight?"

"Do I know? No."

"Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?"

"No.""

The implication is that the State will have to contend that Zimmerman's non-violent actions leading up to the physical confrontation were sufficient to invalidate his claim to self-defense. I know some here agree with that, but it's a tougher sell than otherwise.

stalking someone while carrying a gun (something GZ surely doesn't deny having done) might not involve actually doing violence, as GZ ultimately did do -- but referring to the act of following someone with a gun as "non-violent actions" is mighty generous of you. disingenuous if i do say.

he followed someone, while carrying a gun. and in the end, his actions sure were violent.

[galanter]

However you cut it, yesterday was a bad day for the prosecution. One of the more under reported exchanges was this (from CBS News):

"Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, grilled a state investigator on the stand.

Dan Gilbreath admitted under oath that prosecutors had many questions about the shooting they could not answer.

"Any evidence that conflicts, eyewitnesses anything, that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?" O'Mara asked.

"As to who threw the first blow? No," Gilbreath responded.

"Do you know who started the fight?"

"Do I know? No."

"Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?"

"No.""

The implication is that the State will have to contend that Zimmerman's non-violent actions leading up to the physical confrontation were sufficient to invalidate his claim to self-defense. I know some here agree with that, but it's a tougher sell than otherwise.

stalking someone while carrying a gun (something GZ surely doesn't deny having done) might not involve actually doing violence, as GZ ultimately did do -- but referring to the act of following someone with a gun as "non-violent actions" is mighty generous of you. disingenuous if i do say.

he followed someone, while carrying a gun. and in the end, his actions sure were violent.

Substitute non-punching-hitting-kicking-etc for non-violent if you prefer. The point is they will have to show that something other than throwing the first punch invalidated Zimmerman's claim to self-defense, and they will have to show that beyond a reasonable doubt. And they will have to show this while Zimmerman is contending he stopped following Martin, and that Martin confronted him. This is not going to be an easy task for the prosecution.

[fredrock]

Again, this begs the question--
What was GZ doing all this time?
If he was anywhere other than back sitting in his truck , he was an active player and not just a stationary target.
I'm not saying all fault lies with GZ, but how can you assume he was not fully engaged in this dance up until the altercation occurred?
What was he doing?
Tell me true!!!

[galanter]

Again, this begs the question--
What was GZ doing all this time?
If he was anywhere other than back sitting in his truck , he was an active player and not just a stationary target.
I'm not saying all fault lies with GZ, but how can you assume he was not fully engaged in this dance up until the altercation occurred?
What was he doing?
Tell me true!!!

I have no idea what happened in the critical 2 minutes. It's a coin flip given what we know.
Unless the prosecution can pull a rabbit out of a hat it will remain that way.

The reason I say this will be difficult for the prosecution is that if it turns out to be a coin flip in the jury's mind, then the prosecution loses decisively.

[krs]

The Sanford police chief resigned, permanently, today. Due to the incompetence of the Sanford PD, we may never really know what happened that night.

[galanter]

The Sanford police chief resigned, permanently, today. Due to the incompetence of the Sanford PD, we may never really know what happened that night.

I know the Sanford PD didn't test Zimmerman for drink and drugs, and they didn't talk to Martin's girlfriend before releasing Zimmerman. I know some feel they should have charged Zimmerman over the negative advice of the attorneys. But contrary to early reports they did lay out crime tape, process the scene for 7 hours, canvass the area for witnesses, etc. What else did they get wrong?

[krs]

The Sanford police chief resigned, permanently, today. Due to the incompetence of the Sanford PD, we may never really know what happened that night.

I know the Sanford PD didn't test Zimmerman for drink and drugs, and they didn't talk to Martin's girlfriend before releasing Zimmerman. I know some feel they should have charged Zimmerman over the negative advice of the attorneys. But contrary to early reports they did lay out crime tape, process the scene for 7 hours, canvass the area for witnesses, etc. What else did they get wrong?

Rather than jump to the conclusion that the Sanford PD did nearly everything they could aside from talking to the person who was on the phone with Trayvon before he was shot, test the killer for drugs, or complete a background check on Zimmy before releasing him...why don't you take some time out from mounting this defense, and look into who the police questioned, how long it took them to question certain people, and the depth of the interviews they conducted. It might give you a better idea of the lack of care taken in this murder investigation.

[fredrock]

I have no idea what happened in the critical 2 minutes. It's a coin flip given what we know.
Unless the prosecution can pull a rabbit out of a hat it will remain that way.

Reasonable doubt works both ways.
He shot an unarmed teen to DEATH.
At trial, a jury will want to know what GZ was up to during that 2 minute period.
Otherwise the record will be all about what he did wrong.
DRIP DRIP DRIP
Only person who can tell his tale is GZ.
Will he take the stand?

[BClark]

george zimmerman already has copycats?

shouldn't our congressmen be having a serious talk right now about shutting down the neigbhborhood watch program? seeing as how instigating citizens to be paranoid and trigger-happy vigilantes can, and evidently does, lead to violent actions on the part of said paranoid citizens? and seeing as how the program is funded on our tax dollars?

shouldn't they also be having a debate about gun control? in the doubtful case that george zimmerman did not instigate the fight, then it's the pro-gun lawmakers who are responsible for martin's inexcusable death.

but again, this case is past the point where the general public might see it as emblematic of deeper social ills -- many white suburbanites and fox news types are in fact offended by such an implication.

EDIT: it is not a "copycat" case as it actually preceded the martin shooting. in which case it goes to show that the martin shooting is not as unprecedented or exceptional as we've been led to believe -- all the more case to see this as something symptomatic of more fundamental social afflictions.

[galanter]

I have no idea what happened in the critical 2 minutes. It's a coin flip given what we know.
Unless the prosecution can pull a rabbit out of a hat it will remain that way.

Reasonable doubt works both ways.

...

Actually it doesn't, in this case it only works in favor of the defense.