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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Judge Lester might rule differently, but there are precedents that witness names are public information in even high profile cases.
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.[/INDENT]
And the call logs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
