Prosecutors' wording in affadavit screws Georgie's S.Y.G. pooch: "Zimmerman confronted Martin"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

George Zimmerman court affidavit: 'Zimmerman confronted Martin'
Zimmerman faces second-degree murder charge in the Sanford shooting death of Trayvon Martin.



http://www.the33tv.com/news/nationworld/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-charged-jail-20120412,0,5217308.story

However, they said in the affidavit that "Zimmerman confronted Martin," an apparent contradiction of Zimmerman's version of the events that led to the shooting.

***

"During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening," the affidavit said. "The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why."

Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin."

The affidavit goes on to say that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop, and "continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

[The Magistrate]

1. Just As Important, Sir, Is Citing The Mother Identifying The Taped Screams As Those Of Her Dead Son

That sort of thing moves juries, and in face of it a claim by Zimmerman he was the one crying out will repel jurors.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Well ...

Just As Important, Sir, Is Citing The Mother Identifying The Taped Screams As Those Of Her Dead Son

"And what about Mr. Martin's earlier denial that the voice on the tape was that of his son's? A statement made by the young man's father, with whom the young man shared a residence. A statement made before Trayvon's mother had the benefit of hearing the tape, over and over again, along with the media's commentary regarding the importance of who was actually crying for help?

... Sorry, Your Honor. I withdraw the question. Well ... Let me rephrase my concern, er, question: We have Mr. Martin's Mother's opinion AND we have Mr. Martin's Father's earlier opinion ... Whose opinion are we to believe?"

Disclaimer: Just testing out my Defense Counsel hat ... It's been awhile:

[DallasNE]

41. Do You Have A Reliable Link On The Dad's Statement?

Trayvon Martin lived with his mother in the Miami area. He was visiting his father when he was murdered so back to the drawing boards with that defense counsel hat.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. It's in one of the investigator's early reports.

Visiting his father ... who, as the defense attorney, I would point to the close and continuous relationship between the Dad and Treyvon ... and let the jury conclude which opinion is more trustworthy.

[sabrina 1]

52. I think most juries would go with the mother, if it's a choice between the two.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Agreed ...

That's why a defense attorney would note the timing of the statements and imply that the mother's identification was coached.

[SkyDaddy7]

75. Voice Identification Analysis says the screaming was NOT...

Zimmerman...So, that means Mom is correct & Dad is not.

But none of that matters because Zimmerman went after Martin & in Florida Martin had every right to attack Zimmerman & even kill him. Zimmerman should have listened to the 911 Officer & none of this would have happened! Zimmerman has had a long track history of trying to play COP & now he needs to serve a decade or two for what he did!

[sabrina 1]

83. Or, the prosecutor could note that the father was in shock at the time, but when he listened

later, he recognized his son's voice. If there is, as I have read, an expert opinion on who was calling for help, plus the mother's testimony and later the father's corrected testimony, I think the defense would be best not to basically attack the father. I don't think it will stand up to all the other evidence. I'm sure they will throw it in there, just to muddy the waters, but to place a lot of stress on it, could backfire on them.

[Quixote1818]

68. From what I read the father never said that, it was reported wrong.

Since two court certified voice recognition experts have sid it was not Zimmerman screaming for help, that would be a very, very, very hard sell to a jury. If they can match up the cries to Martin then Zimmerman will have zero chance.

[magical thyme]

91. I'm sure you are correct if only because

if the father had said that it would have been reported widely, not a single time and then no further mention.

[DallasNE]

124. That's Why I Asked For A Reliable Link

And I never got one. This is troll territory because of that.

[thucythucy]

42. "Objection, your honor!

The question refers to hearsay, and requires the witness to offer opinions and draw conclusions about statements not her own. I move that the question be stricken from the record, and that the jury be advised to disregard it. Furthermore, I ask that defense counsel be cautioned against making further prejudicial comments."

Just trying out my prosecutor's hat...

Note: badgering a mother about whether or not she can recognize the screams of her own dying child is not likely to win the defense a lot of points with any reasonable jury. In fact, such a strategy would probably backfire.

As in:

"Your honor, since defense counsel has again raised this issue, I ask that the tape of Mr. Martin's screams be played again for the jury, and that Mrs. Martin be asked, yet again, if this is the voice of her dying child..."

The tape is played, screams heard throughout the courtroom, Trayvon's mother collapses in tears sobbing, "Oh my poor baby. My poor baby..."

"Nothing further, your honor."

I have to wonder if any defense attorney will want to go there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. No defense attorney would ...

dwell on the mother's identification of Treyvon's voice; but every defense attorney would raise the mother and father's conflicting statements, noting that the father's statement came first and before the parents had lawyered up.

[Blue_Roses]

79. That is the dumbest thing I've heard...

..in the last hour,that is. First of all, Trayvon LIVED with his MOTHER. She was the one who would know her child's voice. You are obviously not a mother. We know the sound of each cry,scream, laughter, whine, and can tell you which child it's coming from even when they're in the other room. How do you suppose a mother can look at identical twins and know. It's one of those God-given gifts that help us protect our young.(Mama-bear comes to mind)


A jury,especially one made up of women,will always side with the mother.

Secondly, you have no link.

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. Okay ...

First ... vocal identification of a recording is wholly different from vocal identification in real-time, even if blind.

Secondly, it has been my experience that women more often then not cannot be counted on to side with women.

Lastly, regarding my lack of a link ... I do not have access to the investigator's reports.

[thucythucy]

112. It seems to me the only way such an alleged conflict

could be raised by the defense is if the defense questions each parent in front of the jury during the trial. Statements to the press by themselves wouldn't suffice, they're basically hear-say. So, again, a defense attorney would be faced with the prospect of asking the father whether or not he could identify the voice on the tape at the time of the trial.

One rule of thumb in any trial, as I'm sure you know, is that a good attorney never asks a question to which he or she doesn't already know the answer. Suppose the father is on the stand, and says, "Yes, that's my son's voice." "But didn't you tell the press earlier on that it wasn't?" The list of possible explanations for this alleged discrepancy is nearly endless. "The recording I heard wasn't very good quality" or "I only heard a small portion of it" or "my statement was taken out of context" or "I was in such shock from my son's death I didn't know what I was saying," or "I meant I'd never heard him sound so scared, it just wasn't like Trayvon to be so terrified," and on and on and on. None of these explanations can be easily refuted. What the defense then would face is both parents identifying the voice, with a defense attorney badgering a pair of grieving parents, essentially calling them liars, in front of the jury. Doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me.

It seems to me, and this again is another basic rule of thumb, that the more time the grieving parents of an alleged murder victim spend in front of a jury during trial, the worse it is for the defense. If I were arguing this case I wouldn't touch that kind of testimony with a ten foot pole. I certainly wouldn't call them as witnesses for the defense. If the parents are called by the prosecution (and as defense counsel I'd object, since they weren't material witnesses) I'd simply say, "No questions, your honor"--reserve my right to call them back to the stand if absolutely necessary--and move on. Depending on their testimony I might file a motion for a mistrial. And if the verdict went against my client, I'd file an appeal on the basis that the testimony of the parents was immaterial, irrelevant, and prejudicial.

But of course we'll all have to wait and see how this plays out during the actual trial. Until then, all this is just speculation.

[The Magistrate]

46. It Will Be Done In Court, Sir, Under Oath, With Full Theatrical Trimmings

Asking her for an opinion on someone else's purported un-sworn statement is out of bounds; it would be objected to, and the objection sustained. Folk belief a mother would know her own ( which actually has some studied backing ) would carry the day.

And you would not want to set up a situation where a weeping father on the stand sobbed "I just couldn't believe it, I didn't want to believe it was my son....

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. True ... the question would be objected to ...

and most likely sustained; but the seed would be planted and that bell cannot be unrung ... even after the weeping father.

[CatWoman]

48. now I know what is strong about you

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. I am not trying to offend ...

I'm just making the arguments the defense counsel will make ... how ever distasteful.

[Solomon]

65. Utter fail.

It always bothered me how everyone just seemed to discount the mother's statement that it was her son's voice. That people would take the world of someone who has every reason to lie about it, the killer, and disregard the mother's testimony, which by the way, is evidence.

I can't imagine that happening to a white mother, I just can't. Besides, where's the evidence that his father made such a statement? The police reports?. You gotta be kidding.

[shimonitanegi]

109. Some people completely discredited Matirn's GF statement.

They insisted a RW talking point, which was Martin was the one who approached Zimmerman and punched him in the face. I am sick of those who propagate RW talking points.

[CreekDog]

128. then why did you say Martin's parents "lawyered up"

as if they have something to hide?

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. I am ...

Arguing what zimmerman's defense argument will be.

Understand, it's not that I believe it; but it is what zimmerman's attorney or surrogates will put out there in order to work the public and jury.

[randome]

61. That's a bit much, don't you think?

It's important to suggest how a defense attorney will react if you're interested in the case.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. I fully expected that kind of response ...

In fact, I'm surprised there haven't been more.

But I would hope that with the benefit of my disclaimer AND recognizing my screen-name, no one would believe I support the arguments that I am making.

In fact, in another thread I have said that back in the day when I practiced, I wouldn't have taken this case because I realized earlier in my practice life that at the end of the day, I still have to look myself in the mirror when I shave and I still have to kiss my wife and daughter with the same lips that I form my arguments.

[The Doctor.]

125. No, you fully elicited that 'kind' of response.

By spouting some bullshit you can't back up.

Are you sure that '1StrongTransparentMan' might not suit you better?

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. Doctor, Read through the thread again ...

Fromm my first post, you will see my disclaimer, where I clearly state that I am arguing what zimmerman's defense counsel likely will argue.

That does not mine I agree with the substance of the argument or that I support zimmerman.

If you can't get that ... well ... that's on you.

[The Doctor.]

132. You were asked more than once to provide evidence

that the father claims the voice wasn't his sons.

Without that, you're just making shit up that the defense can't and won't use.

Why are you doing that?

[CatWoman]

78. why don't you mind your own business

I don't recall responding to you.

[Quixote1818]

73. CNN: Trayvon's father positive crying voice is his sons voice

http://24wired.tv/34308/trayvon-martins-father-positive-crying-voice-on-911-tapes-is-sons/

[CatWoman]

80. thanks for the link

Like Solomon, I get so fucking sick of people giving me that "I heard" shit, and offer no linked evidence.

[Quixote1818]

81. I have read the other account too but ONLY on right wing sites

Lies take on a life of their own in the right wing world.

[CatWoman]

84. And always invariably show up here

spouted by people who think many here are stupid and can't see them for what they are.

Thanks again.

[SteveABG]

88. That is not how it happened, though

The family had gathered to hear the tapes.

Tracy Martin heard them alone, first. The detective says he said it wasn't his son. Tracy Martin said he wasn't sure, because it was static-y.

Sybrina Fulton heard them moments later, and ran screaming from the room shouting "that's my son".

So, no. It wasn't weeks later, just minutes later, before the media heard them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. I stand corrected. n/t

[thucythucy]

113. See my post above:

all the more reason then for the defense not to pursue this line of argument.

[notadmblnd]

92. I think it was Zimmermanns father that claimed it was George's voice not Trayvon Martin's father.

I saw that strange interview and the Senior Zimmermann definately claimed it was his son. I've never heard anything about Trayvon's father sayiong that it was not his son's voice.

[RDANGELO]

2. I wonder if this is the first time he has heard of the phone call with the girl Friend.

It pretty much contradicts his story. The tape of it was played in the media the first couple of days after the shooting, and then it stopped.

[Common Sense Party]

4. There is a tape of the phone call with the girlfriend?

How was that made?

[RDANGELO]

9. Yes.

Treyvon was talking to her about how this guy was following him. Eventually you could hear someone say, " What are you doing here", and then Treyvon said, "Why are you following me." Then there was a sound and the call ended.

[Common Sense Party]

13. How was that tape made? The girlfriend recorded it? With what?

On edit: I've heard the girlfriend DESCRIBING the phone call she had with Trayvon, or what she remembered of the call. But I do not believe a recording of that call exists.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. I do not recall a tape of that conversation ...

there is, however, the girl-friend's recounting of the conversation.

[Common Sense Party]

27. That's my understanding as well.

I don't see how she could have recorded it--or would have even thought to in that moment, even if she had the ability to do so.

[Solomon]

77. What difference does it make? She's gotta testify

whether it was taped or not. A witness doesn't have
to have a tape recordiing of everything that happens in order to testify.

What's the big deal about whether it was taped or not?

[X_Digger]

85. Her testimony may be ruled hearsay.

The SP will have to argue for one of the hearsay exceptions. (belief of impending death, etc.)

[WolverineDG]

89. Not if she was party to the conversation

She can testify as to what she heard. It doesn't have to be presented "for the truth of the matter asserted." Trayvon's statements can get in under excited utterance, the noise she heard ( gun going off) and the phone going dead/hitting the ground aren't hearsay. She can also testify as to what she said--that is not hearsay.

[Solomon]

98. It's not hearsay. The girl is a witness plain and simple.

Even if you had a tape, the girl would still have to testify as to its authenticy.

She was a clear witness as to Trayvon's state of mind. He's trying to get away. On the other hand you see Zimmerman's state of mind, "they always get away".

The only reason I can see why people are debating this so much is that for some reason, black witnesses, seem to not count as evidence while everything that Zimmerman says, including his father, brother and buddies, is taken seriously. Even the most outrageous lies, and people are still doubting. Blowing up pictures looking for the tiniest mark, a blade of grass, anything no matter how slight, to justify the murder of a child.

[X_Digger]

102. Depends on what 'matter' is 'asserted', I suppose.

I'm not aware of her claiming to have heard the gunshot, that's new. I thought there was a couple minutes gap between the end of her call and the shooting.

(Wasn't there also speculation that Martin had called 911 on his own phone, but it being a cell call, would have been routed to a different 911 operator?)

[Common Sense Party]

119. According to her earlier statements, she did not hear the gun shot.

She heard sounds of pushing and the phone went dead.

[WolverineDG]

122. IIRC, she heard a noise then nothing

I never said she said it was the gun shot.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. You both are correct ...

as to the arguments that will be made if the girlfriend is presented to testify re: the call.

[barbtries]

90. no, there is no tape of the call.

there is proof of the call and there is the girlfriend's testimony as to what was said on the call.

[Common Sense Party]

3. How does that "screw" anyone's "pooch"? That's the prosecution's version

of what happened, which is in dispute. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that heir version is correct before his pooch can be considered screwed. (Which may be one of the lamest metaphors around, BTW.)

[Amerigo Vespucci]

8. Zimmerman HAS...No...PROOF.

The only thing he can prove is that he was asked if he was pursuing Trayvon, he replied "yes," he was told not to do that, he replied "OK," and apparently didn't do it. That's what he can prove.

As far as your dissatisfaction with the metaphor, so fucking what. I'm not here to please you.

[Common Sense Party]

12. You do not know what proof he has or does not have.

And I'm very impressed with your tough guy hostile attitude.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

17. And I don't give a fuck if you're impressed by me or not

Apparently that wasn't clear in my previous post. I think what I'll do now, though, is put you on ignore, because you no longer amuse me. Goodbye.

[Common Sense Party]

20. And yet I still find you endlessly amusing.

Have a wonderful day, Sunshine.

[marshall gaines]

23. disgusting

you sir lack the general civility that I would expect from a zimmerman apologist.

[Ecumenist]

30. Amerigo Vespucci is a ZIMMERMAN APOLOGIST?? Really? No, I think you are responding

with an answer to the wrong person. REread the post and then rethink your post, dear.

[Kaleva]

32. Look at post #21 though.

[Whisp]

36. that one is poppiing gaskets every day.

better to just stand aside to avoid the big Sploosh to come.

[Kaleva]

14. It's up to the PA to provide the proof. Not Zimmerman.

[joeglow3]

22. Sadly, he does not have the burden of proof.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

114. sadly?

I for one am VERY glad the state has the burden of proof in criminal trials.

sP

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Well ...

I submit that the case will not turn on zimmerman's acknowledging the dispatcher ... Rather, the Defense Attorney will build the case around zimmerman having abandonned the pursuit and was walking back to his vehicle were the confrontation occurred.

You did see my earlier disclaimer, right?

[jaysunb]

35. There lies the "rub" so to speak :)

The prosecution should should be able to impeach this defense, based on the numerous contidictory stories Z told the police initially and the fact that he got out of his vehicle in the first place.
Also, I suspect that the timelines of the numerous calls to 911 by neighbors will box Z in as to where he was when these calls were being made.
I'll yield to you to give what should be a fairly brief and straightforward summation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Yes ...

The initial statement(s) pose a problem; the calls, not so much ... they would have been made AFTER the confrontation had begum and wouldn't speak to the abandoned pursuit claim.

However, the strategy would be to argue that the intial statement was made while still under the immediate trauma after having shot and killed someone ... the subsequent statements were more complete because GZ had time to build the lie, er, fill out the blanks in his mind.

[hack89]

63. Irrelevant - it is the prosecutor that requires proof.

proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman does not have to prove his innocence.

[HooptieWagon]

56. Trayvon was walking down the sidewalk

That runs down the back yards (his fathers girlfriends house is at the end of the sidewalk). This is where his body was found, several feet from the sidewalk. GZs truck was parked on the street, out front, several houses down. GZ admitted to dispacher he was pursuing Martin. Now then, if GZ was "jumped" by Martin as he was returning to his truck, how did the altercation move from the path to the truck in front, to the sidewalk leading to Martins dads house out back?That scenerio simply doesnt hold water. The only scenerio that does fit the facts (911 calls, girlfriends statement, eye witnesses, location of body) is that GZ followed Martin into the backyards, confronted him, attempted to detain him, and killed him.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. Agreed ...

the location of the truck relative to where the shooting occurred is a problem. The defense will argue that GZ lost Trayvon in the darkness and turned to return to his vehicle ... But he did not get far before Trayvon confronted him.

[notadmblnd]

96. It was 7 pm. Was it dark?

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. I can only assume ...

It's dark at 7:00p.m., on a rainy day in February, here in AZ.

[HooptieWagon]

111. Yes. And raining.

And another screwball inconsistancy in GZs statements. He told the dispatcher that Martin was approaching him. Then he says "hes running". This is when dispatcher asks if hes following and he says yea. Then, in his statement to police, he says he lost sight of Martin and wad returning to his truck. Then, allegedly, Martin jumps him from behind. OK, if Martin was running away as GZ claimed, which was in the direction of home, and had lost Zimmerman... then why would he double back and attack GZ? It simply defies logic. Absolutely did not happen as Zimmerman claimed. And of course his camp has been floating all kinds of wild stories, that radically change on a daily basis.

[arthritisR_US]

5. Did he get bail? nt

[Amerigo Vespucci]

6. Not yet, no.

O'Mara did not ask that Zimmerman be released on bond, although he said earlier in the day he wanted his client released as soon as possible.

He did note, however, that being out on bail could jeopardize Zimmerman's safety.

"I think nobody would deny the fact if George Zimmerman is walking down the street today, he would be at risk," he explained, but added that he is "truly hoping that there will be a receding of the frustrations or anger now that the process is moving forward."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/

[Common Sense Party]

7. Bail wasn't even discussed at today's procedure,

from what I understand. I'm not sure if that will be addressed later.

[arthritisR_US]

10. Thanks guys!

[brush]

43. No bail

I saw a report yesterday that there is no bail for 2nd degree murder.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Well ...

The affidavit goes on to say that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop, and "continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

"This is not inconsistent with what zimmerman stated. In fact, it is exactly consistent ... when you add the totality of my client's statement. Specifically, my client has stated that he did follow Mr. Martin, even against the dispatcher's comment/suggestion that following was not necessary; but my client also states that he had abandoned his pursuit and was returning to his vehicle when he was confronted, blindsided, by Mr. Martin. Yes ... There was a confrontation, instigated by Mr. Martin, and that ambushed resulted in Mr. Zimmerman defending his self."

Disclaimer: I'm just testing out my Defense Counsel hat ... It's been awhile.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

15. True, and here's the part Zimmerman can't prove:

my client also states that he had abandoned his pursuit and was returning to his vehicle when he was confronted, blindsided, by Mr. Martin.

Maybe...MAYBE...he has some kind of "proof." But Zimmerman's version of the story seems a little too convenient for me. I've felt that way since her first made that assertion. The whole "YOU'RE GONNA DIE TONIGHT" thing that followed...if he can prove it, OK. Let him prove it. That should be fun to watch.

[joeglow3]

25. You don't understand how a legal court works, do you?

The burden of proof is with the prosecutor. I envision the arguments playing out exactly as posted above. The STATE has the burden to prove that what Zimmerman is claiming could not have happened. If they cannot, they will struggle proving beyond a reasonable doubt that his account is not true.

So, in short, the burden of proof is NOT Zimmerman's in that argument.

That said, I assume the state possesses said evidence and this will then be moot.

[Vattel]

50. That is incorrect in this case.

Last edited Thu Apr 12, 2012, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

If Zimmerman claims self-defense the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Or at least that's the traditional approach. Florida's SYG law has raised issues about who has the burden of proof in a self-defense case. But one thing is sure. The prosecution will not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's actions did not constitute justifiable self-defense under the law.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. I disagree ...

Florida's SYG law is a wholly different animal from the standard self-defense creature. This law specifically creates the presumption to anyone alleging SYG has acted justifiably. This absolutely shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution to show that the defendant's actions were not justifiable.

That's why this case is being so closely watched.

[Vattel]

82. Well, I don't read the law that way, and I have read that it hasn't really been tested yet in court.

But again, what is clear is that the prosecution will not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. Not trying to be flip; but ...

if the prosecution does not defeat the presumption of that GZ's actions were justified beyond a reasonable doubt, she will lose the case.

[Vattel]

117. I believe that is incorrect. Nothing in the SYG law suggests that.

That would be a radical departure from traditional self-defense law, and I can't imagine what in the SYG law might suggest to you that it requires something that radical.

[secondvariety]

87. Unfortunately,

you're right. SYG pretty much lets the shooter claim immunity from prosecution (as long as there's no pesky witnesses). If anything good comes from this horrible incident, it will be the repeal of SYG ( but I'm not holding my breath). I'm betting Zimmerman walks away from all state charges-SYG is that bad of a law.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. I agree this ...

is a bad law. Not only does it allow the shooter to claim immunity; it specifically, prohibits an arrest without there being probable cause to believe that there was no viable SYG defense.

That's a really high burden ... If they want it to be.

[pacalo]

108. If Zimmerman's defense is based on the SYG law as expected, he'll have to testify

about his state of mind at the time of the murder & his version of what happened. And that does put some of the burden of proof on Zimmerman.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

70. Read the response to your post below

If Zimmerman claims self-defense the burden of proof shifts to the defense.

I appreciate your efforts to tell me that I don't know how a legal court works, but maybe you need to do a little brushing up as well. He can't just claim self defense and sit there with his thumb shoved up his ass. You did understand that...didn't you?

[WolverineDG]

86. No, the state has to prove its version

Beyond reasonable doubt. Zimmerman can present his version of events (& how he does that without getting on the stand should be fun to watch) to create " reasonable doubt" but the state gets to rip it apart on cross.

The jury only gets to consider what's put on at trial, so if Zimmerman puts on nothing, all they'll have to go on is what came out in the State's case in chief.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Unfortunately, ...

zimmerman does not have to prove he abandoned the pursuit and was returning to his vehicle; the burden is on the prosecution that he did not or was not.

I agree ... the argument is too convenient (and it came out way too late) ... I believe it was not in the original investigator's statement ... The statement made at the scene.

I suspect that that was the ONLY good advice daddy magistrate and/or the original non-representing attorneys gave GZ.

[hack89]

64. He does not have to prove anything

unless the prosecutor can undermine his story with real evidence, Zimmerman's account will be considered true. That entire innocent until proven guilty thing.

[HooptieWagon]

66. As far as I know, GZ never said that.

It was Zimmdad who tried out the "Now you gonna die, sucka" storyline. It sounds like bad dialog from a 70s b movie. Thus, it probably was a fabrication. Its how Zimmdad thinks black bad guys talk. Its not going to be admissable as evidence, but it would be great if it were. Thats so ludicrus the jury would find GZ guilty on the spot, and start tying a rope to the rafters.

[butterfly77]

16. Another lie they are spreading is..

that on the tape he says fucking punks. That is not what I heard even after they enhanced it some more..

[Ecumenist]

57. Me Neither Butterfly. There's HUGE difference in the word heard on the tape and "punks"..

BIG, HUGE MACLARGE difference!! I may be many things but stupid ain't one of them.

[barbtries]

95. every time i've heard it

i've heard the same thing. do they have enhancements for hate crimes in FL?

[Junkdrawer]

18. Link to PDF of affidavit:

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

[nolabear]

19. All I can think when I see these photos is

"Man, if I ever break my nose I want the guy who worked on him!"

Injuries my Aunt Fanny.

[Common Sense Party]

34. Yes, that nose looks pretty pristine.

That's one part of Zimmerman's unofficial "defense" that seems pretty hinky.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I told the same to my husband

if that nose was broken I will eat my shoe... the court can compel an x-ray, a recent break will show, an older one too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. You know ...

I, early on, thought that zimmerman's "non-representing defense team" were complete idiots, promoting statements from the daddy the magistrate, Oliver-the Black guy friend, and the brother, that were/are easily disproven.

I, now, suspect that they knew that they would not be representing GZ at trial and were trying to be as defensively inflammatory as possible by putting out "facts" that there is no record of GZ actually saying. So the public has all this "evidence" that is not evidence at all.

GZ will be tied to what he actually said in his statements to police investigators and he can deny having said all the rest.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Of course

But pd report has in it bumps bruises and bleeding nose..and pd tape tels a different story.

[jaysunb]

29. See ?? That was pretty easy...

Now I need someone to explain why the Sanford police and the county attorney weren't able to comprehend.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. They are setting ground to fight the affirmative defense...step one

Remember, before this goes to a jury they need to prove to a judge tat SYG had nothing to do with it.

[Kaleva]

38. If Zimmerman can convince a judge he was in fear for his life, the case may be dismissed.

"In a high-profile example of Florida’s controversial self-defense statute known as the “Stand your Ground” law, a judge has dismissed all charges against a man in what was initially considered by prosecutors to be a case worthy of the death penalty.Double Murder Charges Dismissed Under Stand Your Ground Law in Florida

Judge Richard Oftedahl of the 15th Judicial Circuit last week dismissed two first-degree murder charges against Michael Monahan, 65.

The ruling stated Monahan was justified under Florida Statute 776.013(3), the “Stand your Ground” law, when he shot Raymond Mohlman and Matthew Vittum because he was in fear for his life during an altercation aboard a 35-foot sailboat anchored near Riviera Beach, Florida."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder-charges-dismissed-under-fl-stand-your-ground-self-defense-law/

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Yes, but this is why the affidavit reads the way it reads

first thing, go before a judge.

[Blue_Roses]

93. It wasn't dismissed

and the judge did see to move forward with prosecution.

[geek tragedy]

110. He initiated the fight, ergo SYG does not apply. nt

[EFerrari]

39. I agree. The affidavit describes someone bent on a confrontation

and for no reason, and someone who pursued one at least three times -- when he started following the kid, when he continued looking for him after losing sight of him and when he made contact before killing him.

[thucythucy]

44. How long has it been since his nose was broken?

Looks like it healed up quite nicely. In fact, it looks like you'd need X-rays to see the fracture... or maybe you might not see one at all?

[safeinOhio]

49. The big thing for me today was

the PA's mentioning of the autopsy. Shot in the chest. The autopsy, I think is the key to this story. How close? The state of the young man's body,ie injury or marks? Angle of bullet, how far away was the muzzle when fired? I think the autopsy will make or break the story.

[wiggle-room]

53. But in the 911, doesn't Zimmerman say, "he's coming toward me?"

From the 911 transcript:

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. …

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a
real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can
give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or
he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking
about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or

sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring…

Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area…

Zimmerman: …looking at all the houses.

Dispatcher: OK…

Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.

Dispatcher: OK—you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?

Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse…

Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the—he's near the
clubhouse right now?

Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.

Dispatcher: OK.

Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.

Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?

Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.

Dispatcher: Late teens ok.

Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got
something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok

[Quixote1818]

71. Thats because Zimmerman was parked on the street Trayvon was walking on

to get home. Take a look at the maps. Martin came in through the from gate and walked passed Zimmerman's vehicle and then began to run. At that point you hear Zimmerman breathing hard and the dispatcher asks if he is following him and Zimmerman says yes.

?w=510&h=342

[janx]

118. Quixote, what is the ultimate source of this graphic?

I've never seen it before. I've seen the photo of the community but not the paths. ??

[Quixote1818]

121. I found it on google images with key words Trayvon Martin map

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=trayvon+martin+map&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1366&bih=673&wrapid=tlif133428412754410&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Zo-HT5WYMcvKiQLMkfmrAg


The link it was at doesn't seem to be working now. Also, I don't think the path they have for Zimmerman on that map is accurate. From what I have heard he followed Martin on the same path and did not cut him off, but I can't confirm either path with 100% certainty.

[janx]

123. Thanks for the info.!

There will probably be a map at trial, assuming there is one.

[jenmito]

54. The report also said Zimmerman "profiled" Martin. But Alan Dershowitz, on MSNBC right now,

and is making NO sense. He obviously thinks Zimmerman acted in sef-defense, asking, "Where's the part about the grass stains on the back of Zimmerman's shirt? Where's the part about the bloody head and nose? This affidavit is so thin that Zimmerman should get an acquittal..."

He sounded like Sean Hannity, repeating the lies disproven by the VIDEO.

[magical thyme]

94. Dershowitz hasn't seen the emt report

or reviewed Zimmerman's clothes, or seen the autopsy report.

[janx]

120. So true. n/t

[truth2power]

58. Someone please clarify: I thought I read here on DU that the trial would be before a judge

and not a jury.

Or is it too early to make that determination? Just curious.

[Quixote1818]

72. I think one more judge has to hear Corey's facts

and if he agrees with her then it goes to a jury. It already got through one judge.

[NoGOPZone]

97. A probable cause hearing will be held before a judge

who will decide whether or not the case will go to a jury trial. If the hearing judge dismisses the case, Zimmerman will be released without a trial.

[truth2power]

133. Thanks to both who responded. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

69. The prosecutor has Zimmerman "not" turning back

But following Trayvon. Zimmerman may be screwed.

[frylock]

99. toast

[Zax2me]

115. This was on 911 call tape.

Thought this was one of the few facts we already knew.

[Thinkingabout]

116. I have only heard death was caused by a shot to the chest

But I have not heard if the shot was from the front or back. One thing for sure is if Martin was on top of Zimmerman how was Zimmerman not covered in blood when he arrived St the police dept. Zimmerman became a "big man" with a gun strapped on himself but was working with a very immature mind when he could not control his emotions.

[quaker bill]

126. There would be no point bringing the case

If it was not the prosecution's complete intent to defeat the SYG defense. SYG provides an affirmative defense that if proven dismisses everything. Zimmerman cannot be prosecuted for anything if his claim to SYG stands.

[morningfog]

127. Zimmerman: "I thought SYG stood for Stalk Your Goon."

Adding: "I'm screwed."

[Pachamama]

129. My thoughts on this from the thread and predictions moving forward:

I completely agree that the Prosecution plans to take on any defense by Zimmerman as "Stand Your Ground".

The Prosecution has the burden to prove their case to the Jury and their affidavit is the first step in building their case. In court they will submit the evidence (911 tapes, autopsy and any post-mortem examinations including post-burial, police reports, EMT reports, etc), testimony possibly by residents who called and were at scene, testimony by Trayvon's girlfriend on phone to verify what she heard (phone records showing call times coinciding with 911 tape times), testimony by the father and mother of Trayvon of what kind of kid he was and that he had been going to store and had a right to come home and also that it was their sons cries, testimony by voice analysis experts confirming that it was Trayvon crying for help. Then there is also the testimony on stand of arresting officers who wrote reports saying Zimmerman was injured (and proscution might perjur them) and the testimony of the head detective Serino who wanted to arrest and charge Zimmerman but was overuled by State attorney Norm Wolfinger. Maybe they call Norm Wolfinger? maybe they call Daddy Zimmerman to establish there was a "call"? (or the proaecution leaves that to the Feds that are investigating and may bring charges against Sanford PD and State attorney Wolfinger?)

Anything said over last 2 weeks in testimony by Zimmerman's father, GZ's brother, GZ's 1st "legal team", GZ's "best friend Joe", etc - is all hearsay. Even if all they claimed (Trayvon was following Zimmerman, Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, GZ was beaten to the ground and nose broken and bloody, Trayvon said to GZ "Your Gonna Die"...etc etc....None of that is admissable in court. Its all hearsay and the only person who can answer to these things is George Zimmerman, not any of these people.

So the big question becomes for the defense: Do you claim self defense with "Stand Your Ground" and how do you do that when there are 911 tapes and police surceillance video showing he had no blood and grass on him and didnt have to go to the hospital and had no bandages? Does the defense call the police officers who were at scene and wrote reports? Those cops are already possibly under Federal investigation along with the state attorney Norm Wolfinger and either the defense strategy becomes getting them to perjur them as witnesses (if the prosecution hasnt done it already) so as to bring into question the police reports that say Zimmerman was injured. My understanding from Defense Attorneys is that as a general rule, you never want to have your client testify on the stand and you advice against it. 9 out of 10 times, it digs your client further into trouble, not helping them. Mark O'Mara Zimmerman's defense attorney has to weigh very very carefully whether he gets GZ on stand and then is cross examined by the prosecution. He also has to be certain that the Prosecution doesnt have evidence that GZ had been in a fight in a time before this event with Trayvon (ie a bar fight where he may have broken his nose) and testimony from a Medical examiner/forensic pathologist showing Trayvon was either shot from a distance or from behind).

I still believe there may be a plea agreement that all parties agree too. I believe that because of racial tensions and the desire to avoid in future Rodney King like events, all parties may want to avoid a trial. I believe that if a plea agreement was reached at manslaughter with max sentence of 15 yrs in jail with no parole, Trayvon's parents would be satisfied and avoid the risk of a jury trial that could be stressful and even hurtful of the memory of their son. And most importantly, they avoid the possibility of Zimmerman being aquitted of 2nd degree murder and walking free. Zimmerman could agree to a lesser plea of manslaughter to avoid the risk of being convicted of 2nd degree murder.

In addition, a plea will not only avert racial tensions from exploding from a trial of many months, but save the town of Sanford and the state untold Millions in legal and police overtime expenses. The Zimmerman's have an expensive legal bill to pay Mr. O'Mara, even if tons of white supremicists and the NRA decide to foot the bill. They too know that this is not good for GZ. So I think a plea is coming. i think also Federal charges will follow (or be lessened) if George Zimmerman reaches a plea agreement and maybe even negotiates it to be that he serves time in a federal prison instead of a state of Florida prison (for his safety). That by the way, is where Mark O'Mara is really earning his defense fees if he truly looks after GZ. I have been watching him carefully in his interviews. He is refraining from attacking or going after the family of Trayvon (especially compared to the "1st legal team&quot . He continues to make reference to GZ's safety.

Anyway, we shall see....