Regi Posted May 24, 2013 #1376 Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) I think there was no recording, so only the transcript of the statements made by the girl exist. She latter took back some of what she initially told the police. She left out stuff in the inditment statement which originally had only been her opinon. Also it turns out the girl was 18 at the time, not 16, like she told police initially. Some are making a big deal of that, because if she is a liar about her age, what else is she going to be lying about? I'd have to see her police statement and the indictment, which I haven't. I don't know why anyone would lie to police about their age unless they're a minor and are participating in an activity illegal for minors, so right off the bat, that doesn't make sense to me. Edited May 24, 2013 by regi 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 25, 2013 #1377 Share Posted May 25, 2013 I'd have to see her police statement and the indictment, which I haven't. I don't know why anyone would lie to police about their age unless they're a minor and are participating in an activity illegal for minors, so right off the bat, that doesn't make sense to me. The only thing I can think of is that she was 18 and Trayvon 17, so she thought there might be a statutory rape issue. Seems like that her age is not the only thing she has lied about. http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/prosecutors-admit-trayvon-martins-girlfriend-lied-under-oath/ The murder case against half-Latino neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman was dealt a devastating blow Tuesday, when prosecutors acknowledged that their star witness, the 19-year old former girlfriend of the late Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, lied under oath.The woman, who also told police she was on the phone with Martin shortly before his death, falsely testified that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin’s funeral — perhaps to garner sympathy. “In fact, she lied,” defense attorney Don West said. Prosecutors also acknowledged her lie, but were reportedly vague about whether they would charge the woman with perjury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 25, 2013 #1378 Share Posted May 25, 2013 This site has a pretty good wrap up of why the girlfriend has been totally discounted as a witness. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/03/05/trayvon-martin-girlfriend-lied-again-not-16-years-old-and-never-was-in-the-hospital-with-hearing-videos-and-press-post-hearing-interviews/ Basically they used her as probable cause to bring Zimmerman in, but with so many lies hanging over her, they simply can't use her as a witness. She did not have to attend any hearings because she was a "minor", when in reality she was 18 and NOT a minor. O’Mara – “Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all, any witnesses, any statements, anything that would contradict Mr. Zimmerman’s assertion?Gilbreath – Err, no. Well, do I know who punched first? No. If investigator Gilbreath held an affidavit from “DeeDee” containing the narrative of hearing the fight start, the physical confrontation, the words exchanged, and Trayvon falling to the ground, he would have stated it under direct questioning. Therefore one can only reasonably conclude no such sworn statement outlining the confrontation itself, from DeeDee or anybody else, actually exists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regi Posted May 25, 2013 #1379 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Well, I still can't imagine a reason why that particular witness would lie about her age. I'm actually not convinced that she did lie because I don't know what she told to who. Is it possible that that attorney could have simply documented- and then later reported- it inaccurately? Re: that she lied under oath, I'm at a complete loss as why she would lie about why she didn't attend the wake/funeral. Re: her statements pertaining to the event, I think an important issue is that some of her statement it is based on perception, and not of her actual knowledge, and to my knowledge, there wasn't an eye-witness to the physical aspect of the confrontation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 26, 2013 #1380 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Is it possible that that attorney could have simply documented- and then later reported- it inaccurately? That is possible, but then wouldn't that reflect badly on the Procescuting attorneys. If they don't get things right, it is a mistrial and the Accused walks free. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regi Posted May 26, 2013 #1381 Share Posted May 26, 2013 That is possible, but then wouldn't that reflect badly on the Procescuting attorneys. If they don't get things right, it is a mistrial and the Accused walks free. Well, I was referring to Benjamin Crump, the Martin family attorney. So, is it correct that the police never interviewed the girlfriend? I read that there was an affidavit from the girlfriend. Is that where she lied under oath about why she didn't go to the wake/funeral? Forgive me. I haven't kept up with this case... nor have I read this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 26, 2013 #1382 Share Posted May 26, 2013 From what I understand, which may be wrong, the GF gave a report to the police, which quickly leaked online. Then she was purposefully kept out of court during much of the charging process because she was a "minor". Then after that was revealed to not be true. She was brought in for testimony back in March or April. During that testimony is when she said she had been too sick to go to Trayvon's memorial, and was actually in the hospital. And then when the Defense sought those hospital records as proof of her testimony, they did not exist and the Prosecution then also admitted that they had no documentation of the GF being sick or at the hospital on the day in question. So she lied twice and got caught twice. What else might she be lying about, I think is the question the Jury will be asked... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regi Posted May 27, 2013 #1383 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I don't believe there's a police statement.... I don't know if the police were even aware of that witness. It appears that 'witness 8' gave an over-the-phone interview to the Martin family attorney, and soon after, he gave a press conference. The lead prosecutor, de la Rionda, took a sworn statement from witness 8 the following April 2, which (I believe) was included in the Probable Cause Affidavit (the doc. which charges Zimmerman w/2nd degree murder). It was stated in a discovery document filed by the defense that the witness lied about why she didn't go to the wake/funeral because Trayvon Martin's mother (sorry, I forgot her name) was present during those interviews. Of course, that implies that she didn't want Martin's mother to know the real reason, so...what was the real reason? Maybe that will be revealed during the course of the trial. http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews/documents/2013/03/zimmerman-motion-for-sanctions-discovery-032513.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 27, 2013 #1384 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I don't believe there's a police statement.... I don't know if the police were even aware of that witness. It appears that 'witness 8' gave an over-the-phone interview to the Martin family attorney, and soon after, he gave a press conference. The lead prosecutor, de la Rionda, took a sworn statement from witness 8 the following April 2, which (I believe) was included in the Probable Cause Affidavit (the doc. which charges Zimmerman w/2nd degree murder). It was stated in a discovery document filed by the defense that the witness lied about why she didn't go to the wake/funeral because Trayvon Martin's mother (sorry, I forgot her name) was present during those interviews. Of course, that implies that she didn't want Martin's mother to know the real reason, so...what was the real reason? Maybe that will be revealed during the course of the trial. http://www.cfnews13....very-032513.pdf Maybe she was already Hooking Up with a new boy friend?? You could very well be right about the her giving her statement to the attorney rather then the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted May 27, 2013 #1385 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) I read this on Yahoo earlier today. This Zimmerman needs to be charged with the killing of this 17yr old young man who was yelling for help and knew his life was in danger. I didn't open your links but the story I saw said the teen had been to the store for candy and was walking home when he was chased by this neighborhood watch person. Even the people watching this happen were very upset. The calls Zimmerman made to 911 have a rather disturbing attitude towards anyone he saw walking down the street. Sounded to me like a self-styled vigilante wannabe. The 911 operator had even told him to leave the boy alone. Very disturbing to read what happened here. Can't find the article on Yahoo now, but I remember reading that the teen's parents have requested the FBI be brought into the investigation because they feel the police are covering up for Zimmerman and no longer trust them. The FBI has agreed to assist. It also said that most residents of Sanford are supporting the family and want this man brought in front of a Grand Jury for indictment. Will keep looking to see if I can find the article. One more edit. Here's the article I read that was linked to Yahoo. http://www.google.co...2115c5445189df9 Whose slant are we supposed to BUY here? I am sitting on the fence, knowing full well that the present day mainstream media is really, really hades-bent on perception control. I personally think that the neighborhood watch, especially those that are not really registered with the government, is a really good idea. Edited May 27, 2013 by regeneratia 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted May 28, 2013 #1386 Share Posted May 28, 2013 they are not. and you really don't want to do what they said, too many times ppl died cuz 911 operator is cluless to situation caller has a hand, they are there to listen and take info down, and pass it on to cops\ambulances\fire dept. i bet this guy would tell you the same, if he survived. Here's another one: http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?p=2426690 If you google "9/11 operator mishandled call" you'll find a whole bunch of situations like this in different parts of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+susieice Posted May 28, 2013 #1387 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Whose slant are we supposed to BUY here? I am sitting on the fence, knowing full well that the present day mainstream media is really, really hades-bent on perception control. I personally think that the neighborhood watch, especially those that are not really registered with the government, is a really good idea. I have no problem with neighborhood watch if someone is seen doing something wrong. I don't want a bunch of vigilantes running around with guns shooting whoever they don't like the look of. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted May 28, 2013 #1388 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Don't worry, they're on the job.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted May 28, 2013 #1389 Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) I have no problem with neighborhood watch if someone is seen doing something wrong. I don't want a bunch of vigilantes running around with guns shooting whoever they don't like the look of. I agree with that. However, if there is a formal neighborhood watch going on in that area, chances are that it is common for crimes to happen there. So tell me, what is the neighborhood watch guy saying about it all? I will go back and look. Good heavens, I didn't realize how out of date this is. Edited May 28, 2013 by regeneratia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted May 28, 2013 #1390 Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) Marijuana, fights, guns: Zimmerman loses key pretrial battles: Text messages will not be allowed in court. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/justice/florida-zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 In that case, I certainly hope that Zimmerman's past will not be allowed in the court either. I think ANY information in a court case is relavant information. Edited May 28, 2013 by BiffSplitkins 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 28, 2013 #1391 Share Posted May 28, 2013 I agree with that. However, if there is a formal neighborhood watch going on in that area, chances are that it is common for crimes to happen there. So tell me, what is the neighborhood watch guy saying about it all? I will go back and look. Good heavens, I didn't realize how out of date this is. I wonder if anyone talked to other people in his Neighborhood Watch group? Surely if he was crazed about killing people, they would know something. I don't remember seeing a single report about other Watch members being interviewed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tata Rompe Pecho Posted May 28, 2013 #1392 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Marijuana, fights, guns: Zimmerman loses key pretrial battles: Text messages will not be allowed in court. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/justice/florida-zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 In that case, I certainly hope that Zimmerman's past will not be allowed in the court either. I think ANY information in a court case is relavant information. I agree, Zimmerman's past should also have no bearing. People don't seem to understand... Your past is not your present, therefore it is irrelevant in any case for anything other than slandering people. Even without his past though, I still feel he is guilty of murder, and in similar cases judges have felt the same way... So we will see when the dust settles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted May 28, 2013 #1393 Share Posted May 28, 2013 I agree, Zimmerman's past should also have no bearing. People don't seem to understand... Your past is not your present, therefore it is irrelevant in any case for anything other than slandering people. Even without his past though, I still feel he is guilty of murder, and in similar cases judges have felt the same way... So we will see when the dust settles. I disagree. Trayvon has a history of criminal activity and that is what George suspected him of doing. i find that to be relevant to the case. The prosecution will try to paint Trayvon as a innocent little kid. The defense should be able to point out that is not the case. I absolutely think past deeds (good and bad) should at least play a small role. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tata Rompe Pecho Posted May 28, 2013 #1394 Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) I disagree. Trayvon has a history of criminal activity and that is what George suspected him of doing. i find that to be relevant to the case. The prosecution will try to paint Trayvon as a innocent little kid. The defense should be able to point out that is not the case. I absolutely think past deeds (good and bad) should at least play a small role. Your past deeds do not account for your current breaking of a law, unless they directly relate to that law. Saying someones past deeds should be used to judge whether or not someone's current conflict with the law is relevant is saying that basically anybody who has run a red light before should then somehow have that red light count against them when in the future they get into a fight... How are these things related? Although Trayvon Martin might have had a criminal past, or even been a smoking or a gang member... He was not breaking any of those laws.. At that exact moment in time, he did not have any prior connection to anything other than walking.. If w'ere going to allow Trayvon Martin's past of whatever it is (I think he had some weed smoking), we should allow Zimmerman's past which includes various accounts of being a vigilante, and even one account where he considered himself above the law and struck an officer! But again, none of this matters. What matters is what happened that night. Having a criminal history means nothing. I have one, and i'm just a big ole cuddle bear.. Edited May 28, 2013 by xFelix 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted May 28, 2013 #1395 Share Posted May 28, 2013 as long as both priors are burred. but that wont change that fact that Z had his head smacked on the sidewalk. regardless of who started it, like i said before, there are plenty of cases where robber sued the victims and won, even thou he started it, he broke into someone's house, it still didn't matter. why should it matter now? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tata Rompe Pecho Posted May 28, 2013 #1396 Share Posted May 28, 2013 as long as both priors are burred. but that wont change that fact that Z had his head smacked on the sidewalk. regardless of who started it, like i said before, there are plenty of cases where robber sued the victims and won, even thou he started it, he broke into someone's house, it still didn't matter. why should it matter now? Because this didn't happen in Europe.. It happened in the United States, and the State law says that an attacker has no rights, so it does matter who was the attacker.. If this were in Europe I would totally 100% see your argument though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted May 28, 2013 #1397 Share Posted May 28, 2013 TM smacks Z's head on the sidewalk, that pretty much paints TM as attacker. approaching and asking questions is not an attack, in any law. there is no evidence Z threw first punch. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tata Rompe Pecho Posted May 29, 2013 #1398 Share Posted May 29, 2013 TM smacks Z's head on the sidewalk, that pretty much paints TM as attacker. approaching and asking questions is not an attack, in any law. there is no evidence Z threw first punch. Don't matter what we think, after reviewing lots of articles... Trust me neither of us know the full story, we just have to wait to see what the courts say. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 29, 2013 #1399 Share Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) I agree, Zimmerman's past should also have no bearing. People don't seem to understand... Your past is not your present, therefore it is irrelevant in any case for anything other than slandering people. But Trayvon's troubles were not in the past, they were in his Present. He was suspended for drug paraphenalia the week before. How is that "in the past"? Your past deeds do not account for your current breaking of a law, unless they directly relate to that law. Saying someones past deeds should be used to judge whether or not someone's current conflict with the law is relevant is saying that basically anybody who has run a red light before should then somehow have that red light count against them when in the future they get into a fight... How are these things related? I think it depends on the amount of time that has gone by. If Trayvon had gotten caught with stolen goods, robbery tools, and drug paraphenalia a year before, I would agree. But most of those troubles he had were only weeks old. It is not like he found God and had been walking the straight and narrow for 5 years and was a new man. He'd been suspended from school the PREVIOUS WEEK. he had all the same friends. He was in the same environment and situations in his life. Someone running a red light can still get a ticket if their picture shows up in the mail weeks later. You can't escape a red light ticket by saying, "Officer that happened 10 miles ago." The officer can still give you a ticket. Edited May 29, 2013 by DieChecker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted May 29, 2013 #1400 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Your past deeds do not account for your current breaking of a law, unless they directly relate to that law. Saying someones past deeds should be used to judge whether or not someone's current conflict with the law is relevant is saying that basically anybody who has run a red light before should then somehow have that red light count against them when in the future they get into a fight... How are these things related? Running a red light vs. projecting your personal image as that of a THUG are two entirely different things. Running a red light can surely be an accident. Asking a friend if they want to share a blacked out illegal handgun with you in a text message is not an accident. If the defense tried to make Trayvon look bad by saying he ran multiple red lights the judge and jury would laugh at them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now