Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched the bond hearing and he was asked if he could say who started the fight. In fact, when asked by Zimmerman's attorney why he used the word "profile" he said (from the transcript of the hearing)
GILBREATH: I don't recall. This was a collaborative answer. Excuse me. A collaborative document.
O'MARA: When you swore that to be true, what did you mean that to indicate?
GILBREATH: That Zimmerman saw Martin, formed an idea in his head, and contacted the Sanford police department. With no facts.
When asked about the incident.....
O'MARA: Do you know who started the fight?
DALE GILBREATH, STATE INVESTIGATOR: Do I know?
O'MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.
He never said Zimmerman didn't pursue Martin.
Oh great, where is the link to the whole transcript you are reading from?
Thanks!
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days-in-Florida;24070778[B
[[/b]/quote]
There you go again.
No proof he was pursuing him. In fact he was retreating to his car when he was confronted by Martin who doubled around the buildings to attack him.
Who said he was angry? Or did you make that one up as well?
Again, are you for no one ever being able to defend themselves from an angry person with a history of drug abuse who was hell bent on breaking someones nose and banging their head into the concrete.
I know who the angry one was.
Zimmerman will be found not guilty and acted in self defense. Wait and see. So far unless someone pulls a rabbit or a liar out of a hat there is no evidence he did anything wrong at all.
Wrong on so many levels, even if you're basing your opinion entirely on the little bit of "evidence" released to the public.
There were people there before the shooting and just after the shooting when GZ rolled TM off of him.
When exactly in your universe did GZ get the time away from witnesses to do anything to himself under your theory?
Your theory doesn't have a chance to be true. There were witnesses.
You have far, far too much faith in "witnesses'" accounts, and too little understanding of other types of evidence, like physical evidence and forensics analyses. Btw, if Zimmerman rolled Trayvon "off of him" after the shooting, why was there no blood on Zimmerman's clothes when he entered the police station shortly thereafter?
Where do you take into consideration that it was dark outside, people had to bring flashlights with them to see anything, as well as the confusion which takes place in such a stressful situation?
Have you ever observed a trial take place? If you live near a courthouse, you should take the opportunity to go and observe some criminal trials, from start to finish. I think you will be surprised at what you learn.
You do realize that the jury is the entity which is assigned the duty of fact finders, aren't you? When there are disputed facts, as in this case, that's why a case goes to trial. If the state and defense can at some point AGREE on the facts and come to a plea agreement, then there won't be any need for a jury, or in this case, a judge in the event of an immunity hearing.
Why would someone who is innocent agree to a plea deal? This is a clear case of prosecutorial misconduct. You don't charge people with a crime without any evidence to support the charge.
And the investigator said they have no proof that Zimmerman was not returning to his car. So, as you said, no proof that he pursued Martin after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that:
O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?
GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time?
O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?
GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.
O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.
To sum up: They have no proof to show that Zimmerman pursued Martin after told not to, and no proof that Zimmerman started an altercation.
The investigator said both under oath.
Why would someone who is innocent agree to a plea deal? This is a clear case of prosecutorial misconduct. You don't charge people with a crime without any evidence to support the charge.
Dershowitz does NOT know what kind of evidence the State has any more than you do. That information has not been provided to the public. Friday, April 27th, was the date when the State had to start providing discovery to the defense, NOT the public. Dershowitz has still NOT seen the state's entire case. I think you may have too much faith in Alan Dershowitz.
Yes, in fact, people who are innocent do take plea deals because they don't want to take the risk of a jury trial or they just want to get out of jail NOW. That is not an uncommon occurrence.
No, how would I? The 911 tapes do not identify the callers since their names were blocked.
Yes, the young boy said that, but he couldn't identify him. I mentioned that in my previous post. He said he saw a man on the ground screaming. His mother said he never described the man as wearing red, but the police asked what color his jacket or sweater was and he kept saying he didn't know because it was dark, so they gave him a choice of colors. She also stated that the police waited several days before questioning him and added that Chris Serino, the lead homicide investigator, told her he did not believe the shooting was self defense and "the truth will come out." I saw her on TV and she looked very frightened for her son's safety. After all, he's only 13 and heard a man get killed. I imagine that will haunt him for a long time.
I can't believe that Edward is referring to her as "a Black woman" but doesn't once mention John's race in any of his posts, yet insists John is a better witness. Yes, I know John is "anonymous" so we don't know his race. But it just sounds as if he's saying she's a Black woman so she is obviously going to lie, since they protect their own kind, right?
We know what the dog-walker boy said on the 911 call; I thought maybe you knew a way to identify which call was Mary Cutcher. Sorry for over-estimating what you might have figured out.
I don't pay attention to 'John,' or tm's brother, or the 'anonymous' witness you mentioned earlier.
You have far, far too much faith in "witnesses'" accounts, and too little understanding of other types of evidence, like physical evidence and forensics analyses. Btw, if Zimmerman rolled Trayvon "off of him" after the shooting, why was there no blood on Zimmerman's clothes when he entered the police station shortly thereafter?
Where do you take into consideration that it was dark outside, people had to bring flashlights with them to see anything, as well as the confusion which takes place in such a stressful situation?
Have you ever observed a trial take place? If you live near a courthouse, you should take the opportunity to go and observe some criminal trials, from start to finish. I think you will be surprised at what you learn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
