Skip to main content

View Diary: Zimmerman waives Stand Your Ground hearing in Trayvon Martin case (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you think the girlfriend made a false statement (6+ / 0-)

    about something that has nothing to do with the facts of the case is going to ruin the case, I've got to say, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.  Why the girlfriend didn't attend the funeral has virtually nothing to do either with what happened that night or what Zimmerman's state of mind was.  It's totally irrelevant and will likely not be admitted as evidence.

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 10:56:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You don't know what YOU'RE talking about. (5+ / 0-)

      Credibility is everything. If she lied about the hospital (she did), what else is she lying about? She is a terrible witness.

      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

      by HairyTrueMan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:14:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the most important parts (3+ / 0-)

        of her testimony are backed up by other evidence and statements made by w11.

        What most likely will get Zimmerman a guilty verdict is that w1, w5, w12, w16 and w18 all made statements that put GZ on top of Trayvon at the time or seconds after the gunshot was heard.

        The only witness that claims he saw Trayvon on top of GZ, is w6. W6 didn't see the beginning of the altercation, and wasn't watching when the shot was fired. When he looked outside again, w13 was already with GZ, which means at least 1 minute and 20 seconds after the shot was fired.

        •  None of these witnesses can say whether or not... (3+ / 0-)

          Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. And all of the witnesses who saw GZ on top say it was AFTER the gunshot. If you know this much about the witnesses, you must have seen GZ's reenactment video. He says he rolled Trayvon off him and got on top after he shot him. Witnesses 3 & 6 saw Trayvon on top during the fight. Then there are the injuries suffered by Zimmerman including the broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head.

          Add to all of the the SPD detectives who didn't think there was any evidence that contradicted GZ's version of events. It wasn't until DeeDee came into the picture that charges were filed. And now it turns out that she doesn't always tell the truth.

          If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

          by HairyTrueMan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 12:32:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  spot on (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HairyTrueMan, VClib, Neuroptimalian

            There's no witness for either side that claims to have seen the start of the fight and see when the actual shot was being fired. Mary and Selma only saw the aftermath. John saw before hand. The other lady "Thinks" she was "the larger man" get up off him, only after having seen pictures on the television.  If all the prosecution has is Dee Dee and the witnesses mentioned above, it is a hard case to prove.

          •  W12 and W18 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gustynpip, Tonedevil

            Were watching when the shot was fired. They couldn't identify what clothes the person on top was wearing, but they both identified the broad built person as the one on top when the shot was fired and the person that got up after the shot was fired.

            W5 and w16 were in the kitchen which faces the back, when they heard someone moaning. They were on their way to the sliding glass door, which is right next to the kitchen, when they heard the shot. They were outside within seconds. They both saw GZ straddling Trayvon, while applying pressure on his back.

            W3 didn't see Trayvon on top. She saw someone wearing a white t-shirt on top. Trayvon was wearing a dark grey hoody, with a grey shirt underneath.

            GZ also wasn't wearing a white t-shirt, although John seems a bit confused about what GZ was wearing.

            From the Batchelor interview

            So, I couldn't really tell what was going on until I heard, "Help, help, help" yelled again, and then I noticed there was a guy in a lighter colored shirt or sweatshirt or what ever he was wearing, I think it was a red color or a white color, on the bottom of the person
            W1 was in the kitchen cooking when she heard noises outside, she walked to the sliding glass door and saw some figures on the ground. At the same time she saw w6 opening his sliding glass door, and heard him say "cut it out" and " I am calling 911". W6 then went back inside again, w1 walked back to the kitchen to turn of the stove, so she could go outside. Right after she turned stove off, she heard the shot.
            She immediately walked back to where she could see outside. She was looking outside at the same time as w5 and w16.

            This is what she saw
            From the Batchelor interview

            18:13 Batchelor: But when you heard the pop and you assumed it was a gunshot?
            18:18 W1: Yes.
            18:20 Batchelor: Did you go back to the window and look again?
            18:22 W1: Yes.
            18:24 Batchelor: Immediately after you heard the shot?
            18:27 W1: As soon as I heard the shot I went back and looked. And...
            18:32 Batchelor: What did you see?
            18:35 W1: I saw the body!
            18:39 Batchelor: Did you see anybody else?
            18:41 W1: I can't remember seeing anybody else. At this time the light was on so you could see.
            18:49 Batchelor: A light was on?
            18:51 W1: There was a light on in the back. From what I remember, a light was on at the time. It wasn't on before.
            19:04 Batchelor: What happened next?
            19:06 W1: Then I went upstairs. I told my sister, "I think somebody's shot outside."
            19:14 Batchelor: And the body as you're describing it, that you saw immediately after the gunshot, how was it positioned?
            19:25 W1: Um. It looked like... I'm trying to remember... It looked like it wasn't straight down. But it was down and it looked like the legs was like this. Sort of like in a running position. But it was like this.
            19:54 Batchelor: Are you describing a face down position or a face up position.
            20:00 W1: Face down.
            20:07 Batchelor: And you only seen, as you are describing, the body.
            20:12 W1: Right.
            20:14 Batchelor: Noone else at that point?
            20:17 W1: Noone.
            20:19 Batchelor: Do you know what the body, or the person, was wearing?
            20:27 W1: I remember a jacket, and sweat pants, and black sneakers.
            20:35 Batchelor: Do you remember colors of the sweat pants or the jacket?
            20:40 W1: Um. I think the sweat pants was gray and the jacket was a reddish color. Wasn't bright red. But it was in the red family, I guess. Red kinda pinkish, maroonish kind of looking color.
            21:18 Batchelor: And who are you describing the clothing for?
            21:22 W1: It was the body. That's the only... I didn't see a second person. The only other person I saw was the cop.

            She says she saw the body, but this "body" was wearing GZ's clothes. The body was face down, but not all the way down. And she didn't see a 2nd person.
            What she saw was GZ on top of Trayvon, seconds after the shot.

            According to GZ, after he shot Trayvon, Trayvon sat up and said "you got me", he then turned his body 90 degrees and fell over with his face on the ground. GZ, just back from his near death experience, got out from under Trayvon, jumped on top of him and spread Trayvon's hands to the side. That is when according to GZ w13 arrived. GZ claims he asked w13 to help him detain Trayvon.
            Of course there are multiple witnesses that say GZ was already up and walking towards the T before w13 arrived.

            Of course in order for GZ to tell this story, he has to go on the stand, since there is no other person who saw what GZ claimed happened.

            •  Witnesses 3 & 6 = Reasonable Doubt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dr Swig Mcjigger

              They saw Trayvon on top and the injuries were consistent with GZ being on the receiving end of a beating.

              Add to that Tracy Martin's statement that the screams were not his son's in the presence of three police officers.

              GZ does not need to testify.

              If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

              by HairyTrueMan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 05:56:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  W3 did not see Trayvon on top (0+ / 0-)

                She saw someone wearing a white t-shirt on top. How you
                can change that to "she saw Trayvon on top", is beyond my understanding.

                You are well trained by Jeralyn not to consider anything that may not be to GZ's advantage. But the fact is that the reason O'Mara waived SYG is because there is ample evidence and case law available, to make GZ the aggressor in this case.

                That means that the burden on the defense changes

                776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
                (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
                (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
                (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
                (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
                Having all these witnesses say they saw GZ on top of Trayvon when the shot was fired or immediately after, won't meet the standard of Justifiable force used by an Aggressor.

                If you want to remain in the talk left bubble that is fine with me. But that is not how it works in real life.

                •  What about Witness 6? (0+ / 0-)

                  Also you have addressed any of the physical evidence, such as the injuries to GZ. Are you one of those people who think that George injured himself after the fact?

                  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                  by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:58:23 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you saying (0+ / 0-)

                    SYG is only applicable to white man with guns? SYG is only applicable if you shoot and kill someone?
                    Trayvon had the right to defend himself from an aggressor. But even though I think Trayvon had the right to smack GZ in the face, I don't think that is what the evidence shows.

                    A person trained in a sport that involves ground fights like judo, jiu jitsu, wrestling or a combination sport such as mma, will tell you it is impossible to slam a person's head into the ground from a mounted position.
                    From my own training in judo, which I practiced for 6 years, I also know it is impossible to control a person in a mounted position unless you have at least a 3 point control on the person at the bottom, and that is if you are in the same weight class and highly trained.

                     What GZ claims, Trayvon sitting on him with his upper body at an angle, and Trayvon either hitting him in the face, slamming his head in the ground and smothering him with both hands, would mean Trayvon had only a one point control of GZ. That may be something you see in Hollywood movies, but it is not possible in real life. And that is without considering the 40 lbs + weight disadvantage Trayvon had.
                    And yes I checked mma video's, to see if they had tecniques to accomplish that. They don't.

                     They use the same techniques to establish control. Where with other sports, you would go for a 4 point control when possible, they go from 4 point to three point, then hit. Go back to 4 point again to gain good control and then back to 3 point and hit.

                    I can speculate how GZ got those cuts, I think one of sprinkler covers is the most likely culprit, but I know for sure the cuts weren't caused by Trayvon slamming his head into the ground.

                    I don't think Trayvon hit GZ on the nose, for the simple fact that the only GZ blood found on Trayvon was what looks like a transfer smear on the bottom of Trayvon's bottom shirt.

                    It is impossible to be hitting someone in the face when that person has blood on his face, without at least some blood transferring to the cuffs. No GZ blood was found on Trayvon's cuffs or sleeves or any where else on his hoody. Heck not even GZ DNA was found there.
                    If you are serious about finding out what happened, I suggest you check this video database, with samples of what happens to blood when force is applied to an area with blood on it.
                    So I can only conclude that GZ didn't have blood coming out of his nose, until after the struggle had ended.

                    Again I can speculate. I think the most likely reason is that GZ got hit by his gun recoiling against his nose. The spot to the side of his nose that was red, is typical of where people get hit by the gun. Here are some samples

                    •  That's what I thought. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dr Swig Mcjigger

                      I stay out of the conspiracy theory business and try to stick to the known facts. For example, I believe DeeDee is a real person and that there is only one of her. But I also believe that GZ's injuries were caused by Trayvon Martin.

                      Have a nice day.

                      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                      by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:51:26 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Let me address w6 (0+ / 0-)

                    It is possible that John saw Trayvon on top of GZ at some point. His testimony is troubling though.

                    In the first place, John was only watching for a very short time. Both W19 and W1 were looking outside at the same time as John. According to w1 he looked as long as she did. He was a bit closer than w1, so it is possible that he got a better look. Although just as w1, he only saw one person at first. In his interview with Batchelor, he describes GZ as wearing a lighter color top, either red or white. He doesn't mention white in his first statement, so he either wasn't sure, or he was influenced by what other people say they saw.

                    He also said he couldn't really tell if the person on top was holding the person at the bottom down, or if it was the other way around.

                    But the most troubling aspect of W6 testimony is the change in position he describes. If you check his drawing, the first position he saw was Trayvon mounted on GZ perpendicular to his house. Their heads in the direction of the sidewalk, but they were completely on the grass.

                    Then he says they moved to the sidewalk and were parallel to his house, with Trayvon still on top of GZ.
                    Again that is not possible. Even without the difference in weight and the fact that the grassy area sloped down from the sidewalk, that just can't happen.

                    Just try it. Sit on someone who weighs 40 lbs heavier, now move that person 90 degrees and then 3ft sideways, without you losing your dominant position on top and the person at the bottom trying to get away from you.

                    •  It's easy to get the upper hand in a fight... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dr Swig Mcjigger

                      when your first punch is unexpected and breaks the other guy's nose. In fact, I wouldn't even call that a fight; I'd call it aggravated assault and battery.

                      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                      by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:54:20 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You want to stay in your bubble (0+ / 0-)

                        you are welcome. Like I said, I have no problem with Trayon having caused the minor damages to GZ. I've seen kids leaving the playground after a scuffle, looking worse than GZ.

                        But GZ didn't get the wounds the way he described it. If GZ was hit on the nose at the beginnining, he would have had blood on his face during a close contact struggle that lasted a minute. GZ says Trayvon had his hands on his face for most of that struggle. But there is no GZ blood on Trayvon's hoody. GZ has no defensive wounds to his hands and arms, while his hands were free.

                        This was the extent of GZ blood on Trayvon.

                        These are the facts.

                      •  Hear is your fight (0+ / 0-)

                        Fight lasts a little longer than the one between GZ and Trayvon. Kids are about Trayvon's age and about the same weight. One broken nose with blood.
                        There upper bodies are naked, so you can see the distribution of the blood.

                        Couple of attention points

                        None of the witnesses heard the sound of hitting.
                        Check if the person on the bottom could've removed a gun from his right hip waistband, aim and put a bullet straight through the heart.

                        Oh yes, imagine one of them 11 years older and 45 lbs heavier.

                        •  The thing about a sucker punch... (0+ / 0-)

                          The person being hit doesn't know it's coming.

                          Hey, I heard a rumor that Trayvon was involved in backyard MMA fighting. Is that true?

                          If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                          by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:57:11 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Not addressing (0+ / 0-)

                            the real issues are you?

                            I chose this video because these kids are obviously trained and I wanted to address your concerns in a serious manner.

                            And no I don't believe Trayvon was trained in mma. If he was trained and he would've been in the dominant position GZ said he was and he wanted GZ dead, he would've applied a choke hold. He would've used GZ's collar, cross pulled it and by doing that immediately stop the blood flow from the arteries in his neck to the brain. GZ would've been unconcious within seconds. Nobody who is trained in martial arts would try to suffocate a person by placing his hands on his nose and mouth.

                            Let's face it, these kids were fighting as hard as they were capable of. They were fighting longer than the altercation between GZ and Trayvon. We did hear punches unlike the witnesses heard that evening. We didn't hear the the terrified death screams.

                             One kid had his nose broken before they hit the ground. There was some blood, but not very much. The blood was however smeared on both kids.

                            And let's address the gun issue. How do you propose GZ managed to unholster his gun and shoot Trayvon when caught in that exact same ?

                          •  You're funny. (0+ / 0-)

                            A sucker punch is not a fight. You keep missing that simple point.

                            And in your violent video, the kids were friends and the fight ended when one kid lost. Conversely, Trayvon kept smashing GZ's head after he won the "fight." Perhaps he should have run home after incapacitating Zimmerman. He could have run home and told his dad that a creepy guy was stalking him; Told his father that he had to use violence to protect himself.

                            Nah... TM wanted to make sure Jorge got the message.

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:17:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  GZ never claimed (0+ / 0-)

                            he got sucker punched. He claimed he was hit in the nose, and blood was all over his face and in his eyes. No GZ blood on Trayvon.
                            No blood smears on GZ.

                            When the kid in the video was still getting hits on his head and body, Trayvon already had a bullet in his heart.
                            You just don't want to face that Trayvon was just like these kids.

                            Would you agree their voices are definitely male, but you can hear they are still young?

                            And you still haven't addressed the gun issue.

                          •  Sucker punched is my description. (0+ / 0-)

                            "You got a problem?"

                            "No, I don't have a problem."

                            "You got a problem now."


                            And your homemade video of children fighting doesn't interest me. You're comparing apples to oranges; Travon sucker punched GZ (without gloves) at night with no video being taken. I can assume you watch MMA, right? What happens when a fighter lands a clean punch to the other guy's face?

                            The fight is almost always over. One clean punch is all it takes to win a fight.

                            As far as the gun, GZ claims TM saw the weapon and tried to reach for it.

                            "You're going to die tonight, motherfucker."

                            TM took his hand off of GZ's mouth and reached for the weapon, which gave GZ the opportunity to grab it first. At least that's what George says. Can you prove otherwise without speculating?

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:01:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is the mounted (0+ / 0-)

                            ground and pound position GZ claimed Trayvon was in. I am not speculating, I am asking you how Trayvon could have seen the gun inside GZ's waistband on his right hip, and how GZ could've retrieved it.

                            You are the one who claims his story is believable, so why don't you explain it to me.

                            I am also not the one speculating how a kid of the same age and weight as the kids in the video, a kid that is not trained unlike the kids in the video, could've been so much more threatening towards a guy, 11 years his senior and 45 lbs heavier than the kids in the video.
                            I am awaiting your speculation why that would be the case.

                          •  I'll leave the speculation to you. (0+ / 0-)

                            George says he was able to grab his gun and clearly he was able to do so.

                            And I'm sick of responding about that stupid video. Why don't you send the link to BDLR if you think it has something to do with this case?

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:11:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Clearly GZ was able to grab his gun (0+ / 0-)

                            GZ is the one who claims Trayvon was in the mounted position when he grabbed his gun. I don't have to speculate whether he said that. He did it over and over again.
                            It just doesn't look like that is possible.

                            So if it is clear that GZ grabbed his gun and it is clear that he couldn't have done that with Trayvon in a mounted position, GZ must not be telling the truth.

                            I don't understand why you would be so upset about this video. I think it is a good depiction of what GZ claimed happened that night, and until I posted this video it seemed that you also thought this was how it happened.

                          •  The burden of proof is on the prosecution. (0+ / 0-)

                            GZ doesn't have to prove anything.

                            And "upset" is your characterization of my reaction to the video. I think it's irrelevant. Yet you keep referring to it as if I watched more than a few seconds of it. I didn't.

                            And it could only be a "good depiction of what GZ claimed happened that night" if the fight began with a sucker punch followed by a merciless beating.

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:13:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  On an unrelated note... (0+ / 0-)

                            As an avid TM supporter you might enjoy listening to this.


                            ABC is quietly releasing the full audio from the Crump/DeeDee phone call. Any thoughts?

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:32:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What is wrong with you? (0+ / 0-)

                            Why are you so invested in GZ or maybe the question should be why are you so invested in Trayvon being a violent thug.

                            Why did you only watch a couple of seconds of that video? Are you afraid of humanizing Trayvon? Are you afraid you would recognize that he was just a 17 year old kid talking for hours to his girlfriend? Do you think if one of those kids in the video was killed by GZ, the fact that they have a video on youtube showing them in a backyard mma fight, would be proof that they would jump on a guy and try to kill him just because he followed them around? Do you believe that their girlfriends would egg them on to kill that guy?

                            Do you ever ask yourself those kind of questions? Do you have any self-awareness?

                            Or maybe you recognize yourself in GZ. Maybe you can understand that when GZ saw this black kid wearing a hoody, he would think this kid was up to no good.
                            And maybe you think just as GZ, that killing the wrong black kid shouldn't mean that you would have to spend the rest of your life in jail, because you are a good and valuable person.
                            Or maybe you think you are not racist, because you have a black friend.

                            Do you really think it would keep me up at night if I were to find out DD fibbed about the reason she didn't go to the wake? I would think most people would consider that a white lie we all are guilty of once in a while.
                            Do I think it would make a difference in the outcome of the trial? No, not really.  

                          •  Interesting audio, huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            Looks like Crump lied in his affidavit. He's lied a lot about this case. The Martin family is going to rue the day they ever met that dishonest liar. Perhaps if he and his lying associates had not been involved in this case, a grand jury would have charged GZ with a more reasonable crime such as manslaughter. Perhaps Dee Dee would be able to get on with her life. Maybe GZ would serve some time for his reckless behavior.

                            But alas, there was money to be made. And suddenly the truth became inconsequential. Crump and Associates hired a publicist to push the racial angle and the media ate it up. Except they were not being honest. And because it is a legal case, the truth was bound to come out. And it IS coming out.

                            And now the media is starting to cover their rear-ends and report the facts. The prosecution's case is falling apart.

                            And since you are willing to call me a racist for not buying this tripe, I will say good day to you. Best of luck in your endeavors.

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:39:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I heard nothing new in that piece (0+ / 0-)

                            but maybe in your haste to give me the dirt on Crump and DD you gave me the wrong link.

                            And no the prosecution's case is not falling apart. Crump is not part of this case to start with. I don't think that DD fibbing about the reason why she didn't go to the wake which is a fact that is not material to the case, makes her less reliable than GZ conspiring with his wife to lie about a fact that is material.

                            But I guess this helps you to get back into your comfort zone.

                          •  Go tell Leatherman. (0+ / 0-)

                            He will agree that the "fogen" is evil. LOLZ!!!!

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 08:18:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But make sure you call him Professor. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger

                            He's a legal scholar after all. LMFAO!!!

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 08:22:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And for your information (0+ / 0-)

                            W11 confirmed DD's version of the verbal exchange.

                            From the Serino interview:

                            Witness 11: it was just yelling. Like, "What are you doing... What are you..." kinda like that.
                            Singleton: Going back and forth?
                            Witness 11: Yeah.
                            Singleton: About how long?
                            Witness 11: Not long. I mean maybe like three things like that.
                            Serino: Three exchanges. Three volleys.
                            Witness 11: And then it just started scuffling, like rolling around on the cement, on the sidewalk.
                          •  Three exchanges... (0+ / 0-)

                            "You got a problem?"

                            "No, I don't have a problem."

                            "You got a problem now."


                            Rolling around on the cement, yet no scrapes on Trayvon? That's strange... unless...

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:46:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Three exchanges (0+ / 0-)

                            Dee Dee
                            "What are you following me for"
                            "What are you doing around here"

                            Dee Dee: Kinda angry.
                            BDLR: Angry?
                            Dee Dee: Yeah.
                            BDLR: Why do you say kind of angry?
                            Dee Dee: Cause he said it like so deep… ‘What are you doin’ ’round here?’
                            BDLR: But you could clearly hear that…
                            Dee Dee: Yeah.
                            W18 Banfield interview
                            BANFIELD: When you heard the yell, did you make a determination?
                            W18: I definitely could tell it was a younger youthful voice than the
                            deep voice that I heart when they were arguing and I heard them outside my window.
                            BANFIELD: Tell me more about the argument.
                            W18: I didn't hear the words, but when I open my window, I could
                            definitely hear someone arguing and someone yelling. It was not like someone was out there
                            having a conversation.
                            BANFIELD: Were they both yelling?W18: I could still hear the younger person's voice, but really, the
                            other voice was the one that was that was more dominant and loud.
                            BANFIELD: The deeper voice was louder.
                            W18: Yes.
                            Singleton: But you would recognize his voice possibly?
                            Witness 11: I would, but not in that situation, I wouldn't you know what I mean? Like it wasn't... it was just kinda like two men yelling. It could have been any two men.
                            Witness 11: it was just yelling. Like, "What are you doing... What are you..." kinda like that.
                            Singleton: Going back and forth?
                            Witness 11: Yeah.
                            If that sounds like someone saying "I don't have a problem" to you, I don't know what to say other than "dream on"
                          •  We've come full circle. (0+ / 0-)

                            Now you're relying on Dee Dee's testimony. Too bad she's a liar.

                            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:05:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why would you call them children? (0+ / 0-)

                            They should be at least 17. They are lethal fighters. You wouldn't want to run into one of them at 7pm on a dark February night, now would you?

                            If you see one of them loitering under a mail shed while it is raining outside, you'd better stay in your car and call the police. Or at least make sure you got your gun ready to go.

          •  So you've been convinced by Zimmerman's (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            amsterdam, Tonedevil

            reenactment video.  Okay then.

            I'm afraid your insistence that a young girl lying about why she didn't attend her boyfriend's funeral being something that will convince a jury that said boyfriend was the aggressor here is purely wishful thinking.  

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:59:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't say I was convinced by it. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neuroptimalian, Dr Swig Mcjigger

              I'm saying there is nothing that contradicts it.

              And the girl WAS lying. That is not debatable in the reality-based world; The prosecution did not challenge West when he said as much. And the fact that she lied about going to the hospital makes me wonder if she did, in fact, attend the funeral and met Benjamin Crump there. Of course, that would have happened prior to her speaking with the police investigators.

              BTW, do you think that Mr. Crump is an honest person? Was he telling lies or did DeeDee mislead him?

              If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

              by HairyTrueMan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 05:47:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  So what if she's a terrible witness? The case (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amsterdam, Tonedevil

        doesn't depend on her testimony.  It depends on the fact that Trayvon is dead and that he's dead from a gun that was fired by Zimmerman.  What does she have to do with that?  Nothing.

        Everyone lies.  I guarantee you, you've lied.  Does that mean you'll lie about crucial evidence in a murder case?  Of course not.  She lied about an extraneous matter that has virtually nothing to do with the facts of the alleged crime.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:53:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  issues that bear upon the credibility of a witness (3+ / 0-)

      may be raised at trial

      •  No. Only issues that are relevant. Everyone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        lies.  If every lie anyone ever told could be used to impeach someone's testimony, no trial could ever be completed.

        First, the lie generally has to be under oath.

        Second, the lie under oath generally has to be about a relevant issue in the case.

        There are exceptions, but few.

        The judge will decide whether this particular lie is relevant enough and/or indication enough of a propensity to lie under oath to take attention away from the relevant issues and spend the trial's time on it.  My guess is it won't be.  But it'll be up to the judge to decide.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:05:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And her credibility is relevant, ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice

          all by itself, as to whatever "facts" she may be called to testify to.

          From Criminal Law: Witnesses FAQs:

          In a jury trial, jurors decide the credibility of witnesses, with guidance from the judge in the form of "instructions" provided after all the evidence has been received. The judge instructs the jurors that they're the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of each witness who testified. If they believe a witness testified falsely, they may decide to believe all of that witness's testimony, only a portion of it, or none at all.

          The judge also gives guidance on how jurors should determine the witness's credibility. Jurors are told to carefully judge all of the testimony given, and the circumstances under which each witness has testified. They're advised to consider:

              Each witness' intelligence, motive to testify, state of mind, and appearance and manner while on the witness stand
              The witness's ability to observe what he or she was testifying about
              Whether the witness appears to have an accurate memory or recollection of these matters
              Any relation a witness may have to either side of a case
              The manner in which a witness might be affected by a decision one way or another
              The extent to which, if at all, each witness is either support or contradicted by other evidence in the case

          Each juror should make her own judgment or assessment concerning the believability of a witness and how important the witness's testimony is to the case.

          If the witness is an informant - someone who provides evidence against someone else for money, or to escape punishment for his or her own misdeeds or crimes, or for other personal reason or advantage - the jurors are instructed to examine and weigh their testimony with greater care than the testimony of a witness who doesn't have such motivations.

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

          by Neuroptimalian on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 08:13:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •   issues that bear upon credibility of a witness (0+ / 0-)

          are always relevant

          There are five major forms of impeachment: two are specific, and three are nonspecific. The two specific forms are impeachment by prior inconsistent statements (also known as self-contradiction) and impeachment by another witness. The three non-specific forms are impeachment through bias or motive or interest, impeachment by highlighting testimonial defects, and impeachment by general credibility or lack of truthfulness. Specific impeachment is an attack on the accuracy of the specific testimony (i.e., the witness may normally be a truthteller, but she is wrong about X), while non-specific impeachment is an attack on the witness generally (the witness is a liar, therefore she is wrong about X). When a witness's credibility has been attacked by any one of the five forms of impeachment, the sponsoring party may rehabilitate the witness only in direct response to the attack. Generally, a witness's character for truthfulness may be rehabilitated with "good character" witnesses only when the witness's general character for truthfulness has been attacked. Michael v State (October 3, 2007, PD-1611-05)
    •  It has everything to do with whether or not (3+ / 0-)

      she is telling the truth while under oath.

      •  No it doesn't. No more than whether when Bill (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Clinton lied about Monica did it show whether he was telling the truth about anything else under oath.  People lie about things that embarrass them and that they don't think are relevant and it won't matter.  This silly lie tells us virtually nothing about either her or her testimony.  To try to blow it up into something major is just silly.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:07:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was a perjury proceeding (3+ / 0-)

          that damn near brought down the President of the United States, hardly a trivial matter, for lying about sex that had little to do with his job.

          This is a question of what can be raised to impeach the credibility of a witness in a criminal proceeding, which in many of our experience is always relevant. (IMO the borderline issue would be whether the prosecutor would be allowed to bring in outside evidence to prove that she was lying -- but they would unquestionably be allowed to ask her about it.)

          You keep insisting it will be ruled out of bounds; others with different legal experience disagree (I among them).

          When the judge actually rules, we'll find out who was right.

          •  And I bet you thought it was horrendously (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            stupid when the Republicans tried to use such a silly thing to bring him down, right?  Because it was.  

            No, I've not insisted it would be ruled out of bounds.  I've said I think it's likely the judge will rule that it's irrelevant.  

            I've also said that even if it isn't ruled irrelevant by the judge (whoops - what was that you said about my insisting it would be ruled out of bounds?  I'm so damn inconsistent.  First I insist it will be ruled out of bounds, then I say but if it's not . . ."  Insist, fudge, insist, fudge.  Damn, I must want it both ways.)  Back to the point, even if it's not ruled to be irrelevant, it won't make a difference because the case doesn't depend in any way, shape or form on her testimony.

            And I'm not sure just how much legal experience you can have when you refer to a judge ruling something out of bounds.  The courtroom is not a sports field and there's no such thing as out of bounds in a courtroom.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 03:14:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site