Skip to main content

View Diary: Jeralyn Merrit's report on Zimmerman discovery docs (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  At the very least, the defense will certainly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neuroptimalian

    question why his story changed, and argue that the initial story is usually the most reliable.  

    Witnesses who change stories often have credibility issues, unless they can give a good reason as to why.

    •  Just wait until you see Zimmerman's initial (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM

      statement.  If you notice, all of Zimmerman's statements were redacted from the release of information.  The reason the police wanted to press charges that night (which was overruled by the State Attorney) was because they did not believe his account of what happened.  There is also a videotape of Zimmerman reenacting the scenario.  Not all of the information has been released yet.  Stay tuned.  

      •  Wow, are you part of the investigation? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ffour, VClib, Neuroptimalian

        Otherwise, how do you know all of this?  

        And if the prosecution has evidence that they haven't released to the defense, that's serious misconduct by the prosecution.  They are obligated to give everything they've got against Z over to the defense.

        •  What has/hasn't been released (0+ / 0-)

          I think some commenters claiming some things "have not been released" are not referring to what the prosecution has released to the defense; but what has been released to the general public for our consumption, speculation, and commentary.

          from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

          by Catte Nappe on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:58:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I've read elsewhere that Florida law ... (0+ / 0-)

          does not require the release of statements made by the accused because they are considered to be "confessional".  Not sure what difference that makes (it's not like they would be of a "settlement negotiation" nature), but that's the reasoning I've learned of thus far.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:31:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  exactly. Corey has her reasons (0+ / 0-)

        The statements GZ made to sanford PD are classified as "confessions" in legal terms, and this is why they are not subject to Sunshine law.  

        We only know thru proxies what GZ may have said to police, and if the statements are consistent.  The prosecution said at the bail hearing that they were not, and got GZ on the stand to say "absolutely not" when asked if they were inconsistent.  

        Given what his proxies put forth, I have lots of good reasons to suspect that GZ pushed a false narrative, maybe even when he didn't need to insofar as he had a good case for self defense without stretching the truth so far as to say he was verbally threatened with death by the teen before the kid ever managed to put even one fingerprint on the weapon.  He piled on the exculpatory details to an extent that strains credulity to me.  

        But there are a lot of things coming to light that show us why the sanford PD couldn't make a good case, even if they suspected the guy was not telling the truth.  Getting a conviction is going to take more than knocking on doors until they find an eyewitness who saw the whole thing.

        Because what most saw was the part where GZ was losing. And it's probably true that TM rode him like a rented mule in the moments before the shot was fired, and that GZ called out for help many times.  It's clear GZ was battered about the head as well.    

        And no one saw the fight start.  

        And there are actually legal angles where GZ can pick a fight, begin to lose it, and still claim he defended himself with legal cover.  

        But we know two things:  Corey thinks this is M2, and has evidence and a strategy we don't know about.  

        And GZ is locked into a story or stories (plural) he gave before he knew Trayvon was on the phone, or what witnesses actually saw and heard.  

    •  You can't question changes in GZ's story (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, jabney, VClib, Neuroptimalian

      And be legitimate without sincerely exploring why the father's story changed, as well.  To do otherwise would be to have a bias towards finding one particular explanation of what happened.  Those of us commenting here are free to have opinions that may be biased, but anyone serving on a jury should hold themselves to a higher standard.

      •  wha? (0+ / 0-)

        Do you mean why Tracy martin's story changed, or why Robert Zimmerman's story changed?  I'm not following you.

        Tracy Martin is not on trial for murder.  

        George Zimmerman is, and if GZ is not telling a consistent story then he's possibly guilty of lying to investigators at the least, and something far worse at the other end of this speculation.

        This is about a trial and what can be proved in court, not bragging rights on cable tv or some blog.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site