Is there something in the photo that let’s us know that it was taken inside the crime scene and not somewhere outside of the area which was secured (according to the Police report)?
If not, then perhaps we should start by refuting the idea that it was shot outside the crime scene before we assume that is was inside the crime scene. imho
Afaik, we don’t have access to all of what was on the photographer’s phone. So, it’s possible that there’re more things on that phone which we do not know about. As such I can’t rule out that the photographer did take pictures of things which you find more suitable subjects.
I am just guessing here, but I think it’s possible that the photographer lifted his camera above Z’s head and pointed it at Z’s head from there.
Do we know that was the first thing which the photographer photographed?
Just because we haven’t seen those photos, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
I am not inclined to believe it either. That’s why I have my theory about the photographer using his hand or hands to lift the camera above Z’s head.
Perhaps the lighting in your backyard was not identical to the lighting created by the flash lights, headlights, and porch lights which were on that evening in the physical position Z was in.
I get the sense from this that the prosecutor has witnesses that we haven’t heard from to date. Could be that these witnesses saw the altercation and reported things that substantially contradict Zimmerman’s story. If so, I’m looking forward to learning about what they saw. I hope they saw enough of the conflict to be of real use.
Isn’t it weird for the defense to be expressing worry over the safety of the prosecution’s witnesses? Who exactly would these witnesses be in danger from, other than overzealous Zimmerman’s supporters who might become very unhappy with the things they have to say?
Given this, unless someone presents a compelling reason why this inference is improper, I take this move by O’Mara as an implicit admission that these witnesses aren’t going to be reporting trifle little inconsequential nothings. Because trivialities don’t incite lip service about witness protections.
I’d say it’s an ethical obligation for them to be concerned about their safety. It’s also possible that Zimmerman’s team may have heard from people who would be inclined to harm any prosecution witnesses, and as such to be in a better position to judge what danger there is. I very much doubt that Zimmerman’s lawyers would want to see any witness intimidation, even in the unlikely event their client did.
The photographer may have taken other pictures. It should be apparent to everyone by now that Zimmerman is short, or everyone else in the pictures seen with him are unusually tall.
I just googled it. Means the state has to share evidence thats in favor of the defendant, as well as against. Which shouldn’t be shocking to anyone.
I go back to the O’Mara’s delay request. Since we know there have been witnesses associated with this case from day 1, why isn’t it until now that there is this scramble to get witness protections in place? The release of names shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone; so one would think that these safety issues would have been anticipated and addressed a long time ago. Not on the same day everyone was expecting the evidence to go public.
How typical is this, is what I’m wondering? It seems like a stall tactic and nothing more to me.
Right you are. Specifically in this case, it means that the state’s evidence turned over in discovery may include, “We interviewed Abe Simpson of 154 Twin Trees, and he reported seeing Martin holding a mace in one hand and a chainsaw in the other as he approached Zimmerman.”
You get the idea.
I mention this because there seemed to be confusion above about why the prosecution’s evidence would expose witnesses to danger. The witnesses in the discovery material may be defense witnesses with testimony favorable to the accused.
The only thing I can think of is that O’Mara was apprised today that the discovery material included information that might cause members of the public to express their displeasure at the witness’ information.
So what we have is hearsay two layers deep. We know Trayvon got a good look at Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his truck talking on the phone with police (Zimmerman: “Now he’s just staring at me.”). We also have Dede’s story that Trayvon said, “Why are you following me?” just before the fight. Perhaps Tracy Martin is getting these mixed up. We won’t know until we see Zimmerman’s actual account.
Usually when I hear stories about keeping court information secret, it’s one side that wants to and the other doesn’t. One or the other always seems to want the case tried in the news. So I wonder if how unusual a situation this is that both parties want to keep the court documents sealed. That means both side may have to work together cooperatively to fend off some attack by media lawyers.
I don’t think he did use that slur, and I will be gobsmacked if the prosecution makes any effort at all to colour Zimmerman as a bigot, but an afro-peruvian great-grandfather doesn’t really figure for much, as far as that is concerned.
Hell, I know a guy with who is by all appearances **100% **ethnically Chinese (by way of Singapore, though raised here in Vancouver) who regularly causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance with the blistering racist language he uses during his semiannual road-rage incidents: “You goddamn chink! How much did you pay for your driver’s license?!” Target of abuse: Passengers: :o
We would live in a Golden Utopia if a little bit of mixed ancestry made people less likely to be racist jerks, at all, at all.
Passengers: :o