Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Why couldn't the witness have seen a man who looked a lot like Peterson?

Because the witness should have a good reason for saying it was Peterson. Like, he had a known history with the guy and knew what he looked like. Or, the witness had a transaction with him at the scene that involved him introducing himself by name. Or Peterson was the only person seen on the dock that day, and therefore couldnt have been mixed up with anyone else.

Do you honestly not get the difference between evidence that is irreconcilable with a statement and evidence that makes a statement just look suspicious? My point is that it is not all that difficult to construct a statement that isnt contradicted by other evidence. If you keep your story simple enough and commit the crime away from any witnesses, it's relatively easy. So if Zimmerman managed to pull that off (and I doubt he did, since Martin's GF reports different dialogue than he did), then doesnt damage the prosecution's case all that much.

In all likelihood, much of their case will rely on evidence that makes his statement look suspicious. Like his supposed claim that Martin circled his truck while he was on the phone with 911. Or the contrived dialogue. Or his minor wounds. Or the screaming on that tape.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Because the witness should have a good reason for saying it was Peterson. Like, he had a known history with the guy and knew what he looked like. Or, the witness had a transaction with him at the scene that involved him introducing himself by name. Or Peterson was the only person seen on the dock that day, and therefore couldnt have been mixed up with anyone else.

Do you honestly not get the difference between evidence that is irreconcilable with a statement and evidence that makes a statement just look suspicious? My point is that it is not all that difficult to construct a statement that isnt contradicted by other evidence. If you keep your story simple enough and commit the crime away from any witnesses, it's relatively easy. So if Zimmerman managed to pull that off (and I doubt he did, since Martin's GF reports different dialogue than he did), then doesnt damage the prosecution's case all that much.

In all likelihood, much of their case will rely on evidence that makes his statement look suspicious. Like his supposed claim that Martin circled his truck while he was on the phone with 911. Or the contrived dialogue. Or his minor wounds. Or the screaming on that tape.

I get the difference, but it's extraordinary to find utterly irreconcilable statements. It's true there's nothing in the Peterson case that fits.... but there's nothing in the Zimmerman case that fits either.

As you acknowledge.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I get the difference, but it's extraordinary to find utterly irreconcilable statements. It's true there's nothing in the Peterson case that fits.... but there's nothing in the Zimmerman case that fits either.

As you acknowledge.

I don't make that claim about Zimmerman's statement because I haven't seen it. It very well might be contradicted by other evidence.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Terr

Yes. Front meaning to the side a bit forward. Back meaning to the side a bit to the back.

Why didn't the guy say that if that's what he meant?

Imho, he doesn't have the gun on his side.
He puts it in the front and in the back both to the right side.

Why are you so concerned about the phrasing of this?
What's the significance?

[Honesty]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

If my home is robbed and vandalized I could care less whether the person was Asian, black, Arab , or white.
[/url]

Yeah, right. I don't believe that for a bit. Otherwise, Census demographic data wouldn't be most accessed set of data by the public-at-large.

- Honesty

[JoelUpchurch]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/legal-f...n-case/1231950

In this case, I would have to say that releasing the names of the Witnesses is not desirable. The chances that witnesses will be harassed in this case is very high and as long as the statements are released, I don't think their names actually add any useful information.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

http://www.tampabay.com/news/legal-f...n-case/1231950

In this case, I would have to say that releasing the names of the Witnesses is not desirable. The chances that witnesses will be harassed in this case is very high and as long as the statements are released, I don't think their names actually add any useful information.

But what if one of the witnesses got suspended from high school or had a messy break-up with an ex?

Doesn't The Public have the right to know these incredibly pertinent bits of info?

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

In this case, I would have to say that releasing the names of the Witnesses is not desirable.

I think that most people would probably agree on this point. The article asserts that "media companies are expected to intervene," but is this really significant? Even if AMI or some other tabloid outfit presses the matter, they'll probably just be told they can go pound sand.

[Blank Slate]

I don't think there is much danger of harassment because there isn't a rock solid eyewitness that supports either side. The principal witnesses have changed their accounts over time, making their testimony virtually worthless. It was too dark, apparently.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Larry Mudd

I think that most people would probably agree on this point. The article asserts that "media companies are expected to intervene," but is this really significant? Even if AMI or some other tabloid outfit presses the matter, they'll probably just be told they can go pound sand.

Unfortunately, I didn't link to the original Orlando Sentinel version of the story, since it is behind a firewall. It discussed the Casey Anthony case.

As Casey Anthony prepared for trial in the death of her daughter, her defense lawyers asked Judge Belvin Perry Jr. to seal the names of several witnesses who were expected to testify before sentencing, if she were convicted. Perry ruled the names should remain public, noting that sealing the information would only delay the inevitable. If called to the stand, he said, a witness "will testify in an open courtroom and be publicly identified with this case."

Judge Lester might rule differently, but there are precedents that witness names are public information in even high profile cases.

[PatriotX]

What are we to make of this discrepancy between the call logs and the prosecutor's timeline?

Sanford police prepare down-to-the-second George Zimmerman timeline
By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
11:58 a.m. EST, May 21, 2012

*1911:12 - Call received from George Zimmerman reporting suspicious person

1913:19 - Zimmerman relays that suspicious person is running from him


1913:36 - Dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following suspicious person

1913:36 - Dispatcher advises Zimmerman "Okay; we don't need you to do that"

1915:23 - Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends

1916:43 - 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help

1917:20 - Shot fired; screams from Zimmerman cease

1917:40 - Officer T. Smith arrives on scene

1919:43 - Officer T. Smith locates and places Zimmerman in custody.

*The Seminole County Sheriff's Office, which handled the call, reported it came in at 1909:34.

Source: The office of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey from the Report of Investigation prepared by Sanford police Investigator Chris Serino.

And the call logs

George Zimmerman call logs
page 46

At the top left hand side the connection time is listed.
The created time corresponds with the time stamp on the first entry.



SEMINOLE COUNTY 10-CODES & SIGNALS

[you with the face]

I cant figure out what discrepancy you're talking about. Summarize please?

[Magiver]

The police arrived 20 seconds after the shot and Zimmerman is placed under arrest 23 seconds later?. Don't think so. It would take that long to run to the back of the houses and locate Zimmerman.

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The police arrived 20 seconds after the shot and Zimmerman is placed under arrest 23 seconds later?. Don't think so. It would take that long to run to the back of the houses and locate Zimmerman.

According to witness statements, police arrived within seconds of the shot.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The police arrived 20 seconds after the shot and Zimmerman is placed under arrest 23 seconds later?. Don't think so.

Why not?

It would take that long to run to the back of the houses and locate Zimmerman.

Uhh, yeah. Exactly.

Remember, although GZ's directions were vague on his call, by then, 911 had received numerous calls about a fight and gunshot behind those houses. It wasn't exactly a mystery to the responding officers where they should respond and that they needed to hurry.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Larry Mudd

According to witness statements, police arrived within seconds of the shot.

That means they heard it happen. The timeline is much more compressed than I thought. It spun out of control very quickly.

I'll say it again. If either had engaged in a discussion this wouldn't have happened. It appears that they spoke at each other instead of to each other and the conversation was short.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by voltaire

Why not?
Uhh, yeah. Exactly.

Remember, although GZ's directions were vague on his call, by then, 911 had received numerous calls about a fight and gunshot behind those houses. It wasn't exactly a mystery to the responding officers where they should respond and that they needed to hurry.

They were originally responding to Zimmerman's call which was imprecise. for them to pull up to the exact house they would have had to relay that information in real time. It's the time lag between 911 call and relaying information to the officers that I find surprising. But in retrospect they probably heard and responded to the shot fired. They might have even heard the screaming.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Magiver

They were originally responding to Zimmerman's call which was imprecise. for them to pull up to the exact house they would have had to relay that information in real time. It's the time lag between 911 call and relaying information to the officers that I find surprising. But in retrospect they probably heard and responded to the shot fired. They might have even heard the screaming.

They do generally relay important information in near real-time. 911 operators (and police) are much more diligent and efficient at their jobs then you seem to give them credit for. I have NO doubt that as soon as they received reports of a gunshot, that information was broadcast to the responding officers within seconds. It's pretty important that they know that kind of stuff.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by you with the face

I cant figure out what discrepancy you're talking about. Summarize please?

The discrepancy between the call log and the prosecutor's time line.

The call log seems to show that the call started @ 19:09:34 as noted by the article's author.
Note the connection time in the top right hand corner of page 46 of the call logs.

The prosecutor's timeline says that the call was initiated at the time stamp for the first REMark was entered.

Previously, before the release of this timeline, a cop on another board went over the log and pointed to the connection time as the time the call was taken and the creation time as the entry of the first note.
Perhaps he was wrong?
But the reporter who wrote the article implies that the Seminole County Sheriff's office is saying that the call came in at the connection time as well--19:09:34.

Were there about 4 minutes between when Z got off the phone w/ the PD or only about 2?

[you with the face]

I would lean towards the call log being the accurate account for the 911 call, but I don't know. Seems like Zimmerman's phone records could tell us when he got off the phone and whether it aligns with the prosecution's timeline.

[ralph124c]

These three seem to have dropped interest in the case.
I wonder why? Usually, if there is an opportunity to lead marches, run rallies, etc., there three are in on it. I think this is turning into another Tawana Brawley case..or at least, one in which there is little opportunity to make money.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

These three seem to have dropped interest in the case.
I wonder why? Usually, if there is an opportunity to lead marches, run rallies, etc., there three are in on it. I think this is turning into another Tawana Brawley case..or at least, one in which there is little opportunity to make money.

Maybe because Zimmerman has been charged w/ a crime?
idk.
I think that's what they said they were after.

:shrug:

Can we rule out the more obvious and routine explanations before we venture into the realms of hidden motives?

[JoelUpchurch]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,5341464.story

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by ralph 124c

These three seem to have dropped interest in the case.
I wonder why?

Because they achieved their goal: Zimmerman has been arrested and arraigned for trial. That was the cause of the outrage, he was never arrested and the investigation was dead. When you achieve your goal, it is usually counter productive to continue demonstrating.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Because they achieved their goal: Zimmerman has been arrested and arraigned for trial. That was the cause of the outrage, he was never arrested and the investigation was dead. When you achieve your goal, it is usually counter productive to continue demonstrating.

If Zimmerman has a probable cause hearing and the judge rules he's immune from prosecution under Florida's law, what, if anything, do expect the reaction to be?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

If Zimmerman has a probable cause hearing and the judge rules he's immune from prosecution under Florida's law, what, if anything, do expect the reaction to be?

Oh, I expect they will be outraged, and direct that outrage against a law that we both agree is insane.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Oh, I expect they will be outraged, and direct that outrage against a law that we both agree is insane.

I hope so, because that's precisely where the outrage should be directed.

What I fear, though, is that some members of the community will believe it's incompetent or racist authorities choosing not to prosecute Zimmerman.

Even on the Straight Dope, supposedly a bastion for analysis and critical thinking, many reactions have seemed to be almost willful in their efforts to find some way to get Zimmerman. A poster in another thread happily announced if he were on a jury, he'd ignore the law and vote to convict Zimmerman regardless, because "justice" is more important to him than law.

Others will react this way out of a sincere, but incorrect, understanding of concepts like "beyond a reasonable doubt." This, too, has been exhibited here.

So I'm not as sanguine as you are that the outrage will be limited or oeven largely directed where it belongs.

[TokyoBayer]

Originally Posted by Bricker

What I fear, though, is that some members of the community will believe it's incompetent or racist authorities choosing not to prosecute Zimmerman.

Which would undoubtedly be equally matched by outrage from a segment of the population were Zimmerman to be found guilty. A lack of critical thinking is not limited to one side.

I would think that rather than lament the people who do not wish to be educated, it is significant that more than a few members of this board, and I include myself, did learn and moved from uninformed reactions because of the threads.

[DrumBum]

I suppose this news is related to this thread.

From the article:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc , the world's largest retailer and biggest seller of firearms in the United States, is dropping out of a conservative advocacy group in the United States that has been criticized for promoting " Stand Your Ground" gun laws.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

IEven on the Straight Dope, supposedly a bastion for analysis and critical thinking, many reactions have seemed to be almost willful in their efforts to find some way to get Zimmerman. A poster in another thread happily announced if he were on a jury, he'd ignore the law and vote to convict Zimmerman regardless, because "justice" is more important to him than law.

You have said that, given the evidence we have now, Zimmerman should not be convicted. Suppose the case goes to trial, there is no new evidence for the prosecution, yet Zimmerman is still convicted. Will you conclude that the system worked, and justice was done, or might we hear you say the case was decided wrongly?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by TokyoPlayer

Which would undoubtedly be equally matched by outrage from a segment of the population were Zimmerman to be found guilty. A lack of critical thinking is not limited to one side.

I would think that rather than lament the people who do not wish to be educated, it is significant that more than a few members of this board, and I include myself, did learn and moved from uninformed reactions because of the threads.

That's really great to hear.

I often wonder if people are reading these things and changing their minds as a result. There's no helpful dashboard below each thread to show how much it's affecting opinions and conclusions of readers. So I really appreciate hearing you say this.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

You have said that, given the evidence we have now, Zimmerman should not be convicted. Suppose the case goes to trial, there is no new evidence for the prosecution, yet Zimmerman is still convicted. Will you conclude that the system worked, and justice was done, or might we hear you say the case was decided wrongly?

My first instinct would be that the jury impermissibly convicted -- that is, the record didn't establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as a matter of law, but the jury convicted anyway.

That's why we have an appellate system, after all. And plenty of cases that are reversed on appeal because of precisely that - a "common sense, we know he's guilty" conviction that doesn't have legal sufficiency.

I think that's pretty unlikely, though. I'm virtually certain there is additional evidence.

[JoelUpchurch]

I was watching the hearing and the judge decided that Zimmerman and his wife lied about the money in their paypal account during the bond hearing and revoked Zimmerman's bond. He has 48 hours to report to the jail.

[Fear Itself]

I wonder what else he lied about...

[Fear Itself]

Turns out, Zimmerman surrendered an expired passport, while keeping a valid passport which he acquired two weeks after he killed Trayvon Martin.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/prosecution...ry?id=16476183

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Turns out, Zimmerman surrendered an expired passport, while keeping a valid passport which he acquired two weeks after he killed Trayvon Martin.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/prosecution...ry?id=16476183

Not good for Zimmerman.

Now he's going to serve a year in jail, more or less, regardless of how his trial turns out.

ETA:

Not exactly an accurate summary of the ABC News piece:

Although one of his passports was due to expire in May, prosecutors said today, Zimmerman applied for a second passport, informing the State Department that the original had been lost lost or stolen.

He was released on bond April 22. If he surrendered that passport, it would not have been expired. Right?

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That's really great to hear.

I often wonder if people are reading these things and changing their minds as a result. There's no helpful dashboard below each thread to show how much it's affecting opinions and conclusions of readers. So I really appreciate hearing you say this.

Add me to the list of people learning from this thread. Of course my opinion has moved from "those incompetent racist bastards should be fired" to "holy shit our laws are fucked up," so I won't claim it's a better opinion.

[Bricker]

I previously said there was no clear evidence he lied about the Paypal business. And there was not.

Now, however, it seems clear he knew about the Paypal account at all relevant times, and deliberately misled the court about his finances.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

He was released on bond April 22. If he surrendered that passport, it would not have been expired. Right?

No, because when the State Department issues a new passport, the old one is invalidated, regardless of the face date of expiration. GZ submitted an invalid passport. I do not wish to engage in any pedantry about the meaning of "expired" versus "invalid".

[Blank Slate]

I guess it became apparent that he had to know about the money.

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I previously said there was no clear evidence he lied about the Paypal business. And there was not.

Now, however, it seems clear he knew about the Paypal account at all relevant times, and deliberately misled the court about his finances.

Sounds as if some of our conservative friends might have hitched themselves to the wrong wagon.

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

Sounds as if some of our conservative friends might have hitched themselves to the wrong wagon.

To be fair, these seem like entirely discrete issues.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Not good for Zimmerman.

Now he's going to serve a year in jail, more or less, regardless of how his trial turns out.

I was watching the hearing and Judge Lester says he can request another bond hearing.

There was also some mention that the state might bring charges against his wife for lying at the bond hearing. Apparently the state recorded the phone calls Zimmerman made from the prison to his wife.

It sounds like media companies got most of what they asked for, but the defense gets 30 days to review and file motions before it is released.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Not good for Zimmerman.

Now he's going to serve a year in jail, more or less, regardless of how his trial turns out.

He is also in violation of federal law regarding false statements in a passport application, for which he could receive up to 15 years:

§ 1542. False statement in application and use of passport

Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or--

Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.

[voltaire]

You do have to wonder about his motivations with getting that new passport, then surrendering the old one, and lying about his finances to more easily secure bail.

It sure does sound like someone who has good reason to believe that his case won't go too well. He had to have at least considered that all that lying would come to light sooner or later with all the scrutiny on him. Did he plan to flee before that happened?

Sure doesn't look good, on multiple levels.

[you with the face]

Could these lies be used at his trial to show he has credibility issues?

Also, the fact that he was willing to break the law to acquire a second passport...is this evidence that he was attempting to flee prosecution? If so, is this likely to be brought up in trial?

I'm reminded once again of Scott Peterson, and how he started sporting bleach-blonde hair after his wife disappeared.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

He is also in violation of federal law regarding false statements in a passport application, for which he could receive up to 15 years:

There were no false statements. He misplaced his passport and then he found it. Judge Lester wasn't upset. He compared it to misplacing your driver's license. O'Mara went into some detail about what happened. Judge Lester was very upset about not reporting the Paypal money

[PotLuck]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

There were no false statements. He misplaced his passport and then he found it. Judge Lester wasn't upset. He compared it to misplacing your driver's license. O'Mara went into some detail about what happened. Judge Lester was very upset about not reporting the Paypal money

From the ABC News link: "In recordings of conversations released today during a court hearing, Zimmerman and his wife, Shelly Zimmerman, cryptically talk about his second passport in a safety deposit box they shared."

I'd like to hear this simple explanation. Did Zimmerman mention his new but missing passport when he turned over the old one? Did he misplace his new and valid passport in that safety deposit box? It's all very interesting.

[simster]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

There were no false statements. He misplaced his passport and then he found it. Judge Lester wasn't upset. He compared it to misplacing your driver's license. O'Mara went into some detail about what happened. Judge Lester was very upset about not reporting the Paypal money

The way this reads

Zimmerman spoke of the second passport while in the Seminole County Jail in a phone call to his wife that authorities recorded, Corey said. Court records provided a partial transcript:

Zimmerman: "Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag."

Shelly Zimmerman: "I have one for you in safety deposit box ..."

Zimmerman: "OK, you hold onto that."

I take that he intentionally held onto one - he may have not intentionally lied about needing a replacement - but that sounds very intentional on holding on to the replacement passport.

[Fear Itself]

It can also be argued that the very act of submitting an invalid passport to the court is also a federal crime as wel as a state crime.