I expect the various eyewitness testimony to offer conflicting details. These people were inside homes and looking out into a very dark area. The details will be a little different between witnesses.
I don’t understand the significance of the left to right movement. The defense is really questioning it. Bahadoor seems pretty hostile to the defense.
She seems pretty clueless, no hostile. He’s backing her into corners and she doesn’t know how to react. I’m not sure if he’s hammering on her because the left-to-right would be damaging to the defense, or if this is just standard witness discrediting. I don’t watch a lot of trials.
eta: There’s a stark difference between the government employees, who have likely testified at dozens or hundreds of trials, and this civilian.
If the lack of Zimmerman’s blood or DNA on Martin’s hands shows he didn’t attack him, doesn’t the lack of Martin’s blood or DNA at the scene show he wasn’t shot there? It doesn’t make sense to only use it one way.
Anyway, more evidence in favour of Zimmerman.
Bahadoor admitted she signed a petition to prosecute Trayvon’s killer. I’d say shes been discredited by the defense.
The second sentence does not follow from the first. (I’m not sure if you intended it to.)
Today’s trial was, again, awesome for the prosecution. They played tapes of previous 911 tapes made by George Zimmerman. What did they all have in common? They all began “There is someone suspicious here” “I don’t know what his deal is” "He’s black “He’s African-American” over and over and over again in separate phone calls. The same characteristics he used for Trayvon, he used for a host of other African-Americans that he profiled. Interestingly, in all of the tapes played, he refused to confront the person who he reported which is in stark contrast to his behavior with Trayvon. Why is that? It’s because Trayvon was a teenager and he didn’t want to let “those fucking punks” get away.
Any detail on what percentage of those people actually were up to no good?
This is circular. You’re assuming he decided to confront Trayvon.
IMO, the fact you’ve pointed to argues the opposite - that he was not a wannabe cop who liked to confront people, safe in the knowlege that he had a gun (as many have argued) and most likely did not in fact decide to confront Trayvon.
Yes, because phoning the police about suspicious people is a negative character trait… That’s hardly going to reflect badly on him, assuming the jury isn’t made up of career criminals.
These calls, along with the evidence that he refused to work with the police when offered, demolish the notion that he was a “wannabe cop”. What he wanted was for the cops to do their job, not do it for them.
[QUOTE=FP]
Any detail on what percentage of those people actually were up to no good?
[/QUOTE]
From your mouth to the Defense’s ears. Let’s hope they can find that answer quick.
Of course not, but when you the same words to characterize other black men the same way he did Trayvon, it’s almost as if he was running on a script. “There’s someone suspicious here,” “I don’t know what his deal is”. It reminds me of the Ms. Swan skits on MadTV where she described every male as “He looka like a man”. Eventually, in this skit, you become desensitized to that description because you realize it’s how she describes everyone like that. Same with Mr. Zimmerman.
[QUOTE=FP]
This is circular. You’re assuming he decided to confront Trayvon.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that what the prosecution is arguing?
[QUOTE=FP]
IMO, the fact you’ve pointed to argues the opposite - that he was not a wannabe cop who liked to confront people, safe in the knowlege that he had a gun (as many have argued) and most likely did not in fact decide to confront Trayvon.
[/QUOTE]
Nah, the people who he profiled were adults, not teenagers. Vultures don’t attack the strong.
I believe defense objected yesterday to playing those tapes and the judge said today she will review the objections and decide by the end of the day whether to allow those tapes in court. In the live blogging I saw today I saw no mention of playing the “previous 911 tapes”. Are you sure?
This Orlando Sentinel article says that the judge listened to the tapes, but not that they were played to the jury. It looks like she hasn’t made her ruling yet.
Looks like Honesty is, once again, not living up to his username.
The prosecution cherrypicked 6 calls from GZ where GZ referred to suspicious people as black males. The prosecution didn’t chose the other 30 plus calls GZ made. I wonder why? Was it because they didn’t contain referrences to black males?
The judge hasn’t allowed the jury to hear any of these 6 selected calls yet.
Some interesting points from testimony from prosecution witnesses today. Seems like they should have been defense witnesses instead.
O’Brien, president of the HOA: describes how the burglar was caught in the area because some workers saw him, thought him suspicious and (drum roll) “followed him from a distance”. O’Brien thought that was great. A gimme for the defense.
Wendy Dorival, the police Neighborhood Watch coordinator.
Dorival instructed NW volunteers to call if they were in any doubt.
West asked if she meant that residents should err on the side of making the call.
Dorival answered “Yes”.
on re-cross:
Guy: What lead you to recommend Zimmerman for patrol?
Dorival answers that she thought he was interested an responsible.
IMHO, the left-to-right movement suddenly remembered by Bahadoor, if true, would show that the confrontation started much farther away from the “T” and closer to (relatively-speaking) TM’s father’s girlfriend’s home than has been previous discussed on the internet. The place where the prosecution intends to show the 2nd confrontation started hasn’t been introduced to the court yet.
A rational person would conclude the prosecutors are getting their butts kicked.
The problem the prosecutors have is that Trayvon, if DD is telling the truth about him just walking, shouldn’t have been near the T, unless he has the foot speed of a box turtle. One way around this is to have Zimmerman chasing him back and forth along that path. Which makes no more sense, but what the heck.
The left-to-right movement reported by the witness is damaging to the defense because it indicates two things: 1) the altercation started south of the T contrary to what Zimmerman claimed and 2) the fight traveled signficantly before the kid was shot…which again contradicts Zimmerman’s story.
The witness also reported seeing two people standing up during most of the exchange. Not only does this contradict Z, but this contradicts W6, who says he saw two guys on the ground.
With the way the defense pounced on Witness 1, they might as well have held up a sign announcing to the jury that their Achille’s heels are getting trampled on. If the fight traveled, who was chasing whom? Why would Zimmerman lie about the trajectory if he’d been the one being chased? How did the fight start south of the T, if Zimmerman called off his search for the kid? These are questions an intelligent juror should be considering.
O’Mara badgered the witness but didn’t succeed in getting her to recant these claims. In addition, witnesses can sign all the petitions they want and still be credible. Exercising one’s 5th amendment rights doesn’t suddenly turn someone into a liar. The fact that O’Mara had to grasp at such a straw should be another clue to the jury that the defense’s case is a shaky as a house of cards.
Dude, you’re so paranoid. I listened to the tapes from the recorded stream which you can listen tohere. I never said nor implied that the jury listened to the tapes, was simply expressing excitement that the evidence was presented. Jesus Christ, there’s no man behind the curtain. I would beg that you pay more attention to the message rather than the messenger. Or, if it helps you, use the ignore feature to ignore my posts altogether.
Thank you.
Yes, the tapes were played in front of the judge. You can see it in the link in my previous post.
Consider the possibility that he turned down “citizen on patrol” because he would have been subjected to a background check. SPD had no idea whether Zimmerman was good or not because they didn’t know anything about his past.
He committed the act of patrolling when followed Martin in his truck and then on foot, so if anything, this testimony damages Zimmerman.