|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Zimmerman acquitted
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
We don't know how many other residents were involved in Neighbourhood Watch, and how many calls they made, so we can`t really make a judgment on the number of calls George Zimmermann made.
And yet, that number of calls seems a lot to me as well, even remembering the bad old days when my neighbourhood was a ``stroll``.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I thought it was made clear Zimmerman was NOT on the official neighborhood watch?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I thought it was made clear Zimmerman was NOT on the official neighborhood watch?
I thought he was, but that he wasn't 'on duty' on the night in question.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
We don't know how many other residents were involved in Neighbourhood Watch, and how many calls they made, so we can`t really make a judgment on the number of calls George Zimmermann made.
More than half of the calls he made dealt with such matters as a garage door left open when he knew the residents weren't home. If my garage door is open when I'm not home, I would be glad to have someone tell the police.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
More than half of the calls he made dealt with such matters as a garage door left open when he knew the residents weren't home. If my garage door is open when I'm not home, I would be glad to have someone tell the police. ...
I still don`t get it. Reporting an open garage door to police leads to the police doing ... what? Do they come by and close the door? Call the homeowner to come close the door? Advise the homeowner's insurance company?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
More than half of the calls he made dealt with such matters as a garage door left open when he knew the residents weren't home. If my garage door is open when I'm not home, I would be glad to have someone tell the police. ...
I still don`t get it. Reporting an open garage door to police leads to the police doing ... what? Do they come by and close the door? Call the homeowner to come close the door? Advise the homeowner's insurance company?
Search the home for contraband while the owners are out and they have free access?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I also note the overt bias of the source, which makes me wonder about the quality of the information...
As opposed to, say, Zimmerman's testimony?
Which is of course biased - one would expect that, wouldn't they?
With "news" sources, though, I generally like them to at least make some pretense of neutrality. I generally don't trust anything without multiple sources, and if the sources include Faux News, WND, HuffPo, etc. (blatant propaganda from both sides of the aisle, thanks) I trust even less...
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I still don`t get it. Reporting an open garage door to police leads to the police doing ... what? Do they come by and close the door? Call the homeowner to come close the door? Advise the homeowner's insurance company?
Here, at least, they would generally a) check for intruders, b) close the door/secure the house, and c) file a report, which could be used by the homeowner in the event something was discovered missing later.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I still don`t get it. Reporting an open garage door to police leads to the police doing ... what? Do they come by and close the door? Call the homeowner to come close the door? Advise the homeowner's insurance company?
Here, at least, they would generally a) check for intruders, b) close the door/secure the house, and c) file a report, which could be used by the homeowner in the event something was discovered missing later.
Yes, that is why I would want it reported.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eliab's right. It's one thing to suggest an investigation was slow or flawed or otherwise incompetent. It's quite another to suggest that the investigation successfully uncovered a gunshot wound in the back, but then covered it up even more successfully. The proposal makes no sense when you consider the steps required.
This, I think, is pretty unarguable. And yet...
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:
Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated? Or that no one would possibly bother? Or that (American) authorities couldn't be that corrupt? Or...?
Thanks!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Yes
Yes
And not the level of corruption required to rig a trial of this magnitude
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:
Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated?
The traditional argument against this sort of thing happening is that it would require the silence of too many people. Someone would eventually come forward with the true story, exposing the corruption. Of course, what we have now is someone allegedly coming forward with what he claims is "the true story" and the general reaction is to dismiss the allegations out of hand.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:
Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated?
The traditional argument against this sort of thing happening is that it would require the silence of too many people. Someone would eventually come forward with the true story, exposing the corruption. Of course, what we have now is someone allegedly coming forward with what he claims is "the true story" and the general reaction is to dismiss the allegations out of hand.
And I don't even know that it has to be all that deliberate, organized or conscious a decision. I could see where the prosecutor makes some assumptions early on in the case, which, while something you want to avoid, I would imagine inevitably happens fairly often just based on your previous professional experiences. That starts to color the way you look at the evidence just as it does for all of us when we have a hunch about something (e.g. the way I instinctively believe internet stories that align with my beliefs, but rush to snopes with those that don't). Then you throw in the court system itself which is set up in a adverserial competitive model. I can see this happening. Because we're not talking about destroying evidence or intimidating a witness so much as just not asking the right questions. That would be pretty easy to rationalize if your gut is telling you Zimmermann is innocent.
Of course, the "disgruntled employee" theory plays well too.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
The California Innocence Project has an article on prosecutorial misconduct. It steps through the many ways it can occur. At the bottom of the page, there's a list of links to more detailed info.
I know the usual argument about someone telling on a conspiracy, that it would always happen. And I know that people do spill secrets about all sorts of things. (Especially since the Internet!)
OTOH, military and federal/national government secrets are often kept for a long time. Long-lost historical secrets come to light (i.e., they were *secret* for a long time.). Legends turn out to have more (or less) truth to them., previously hidden. Family secrets can be kept 'til death, or for generations. Etc.
I don't know the truth of what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. But the whole process has only taken a couple of years, and that's not a long time to keep a secret.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The trouble with the argument that the prosecution was hiding evidence (either deliberately or by negligence) is that I gather that the person carrying out the autopsy was called to give evidence. If he were, then to the standard question "What did you find when you examined the deceased" he would have answered that he had found a gunshot wound to the deceased's back. And Moo has set out above evidence to the effect that the shirt was away from the body when the gun was fired, and that this supported a theory that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman. This seems to be a case of a disgruntled employee and one doing his claim for unjust dismissal no good at all.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
The other thing is that all this happened in open court, in front (I assume) of a lot of media. If someone wants to allege that prosecution was botched deliberately or through gross negligence by failing to ask some fairly basic questions -- a very serious allegation -- they are welcome to try to back it up through news reports or, failing that, the transcripts of the evidence heard.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:
Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated? Or that no one would possibly bother? Or that (American) authorities couldn't be that corrupt? Or...?
Thanks!
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... Here, at least, they would generally a) check for intruders, b) close the door/secure the house, and c) file a report, which could be used by the homeowner in the event something was discovered missing later.
So someone reporting your garage door open means a) the police enter and search your home and c) your insurance company can say you left the door open and reject your claim, but at least b) the police close the door when they're done. Got it.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Again, I'm dubious about any conspiracy to get Z off (though it's possible there might have been an effort to avoid revealing details of a sloppy initial investigation). That said, though, there are many ways of asking questions.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The trouble with the argument that the prosecution was hiding evidence (either deliberately or by negligence) is that I gather that the person carrying out the autopsy was called to give evidence. If he were, then to the standard question "What did you find when you examined the deceased" he would have answered that he had found a gunshot wound to the deceased's back. And Moo has set out above evidence to the effect that the shirt was away from the body when the gun was fired, and that this supported a theory that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman. This seems to be a case of a disgruntled employee and one doing his claim for unjust dismissal no good at all.
First, there aren't necessarily any "standard" questions. The prosecution doesn't always (and isn't required to) phrase questions in this open-ended format: ". . . and what did you find?"
The prosecution can ask a series of much more specific questions like, "In your opinion, Doctor, at what range was the victim shot?" and (after s/he answers) "And how do you know this?"
Q&A sessions like this can dance all around larger issues of whether we're discussing an entrance or exit wound, or where said wound appears on the body without (at least in my experience) others noticing that a larger question has been left unanswered.
I'm not claiming this happened in the Z trial (I didn't watch it, so I don't know). But it certainly could have. Witnesses are required to answer the questions put to them, but as Mousethief pointed out above, they can't offer testimony that hasn't been prompted by a question.
I frequently have to ask my clients about their activities, in an effort to help them understand whatever mess they're currently in, after one of my staff has (on the basis of her or his preconceived notions) cocked-up a similar previous interview. Clients, trying to avoid "getting in trouble" will offer false or mistaken or partial info; staff fill in the blanks with assumptions of their own, and leap to erroneous conclusions.
This technique is routinely employed in examining witnesses.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:
Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated? Or that no one would possibly bother? Or that (American) authorities couldn't be that corrupt? Or...?
Thanks!
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
Then firing him for giving testimony that helped the defense when that's what you wanted to do in the first place
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
. . . And Moo has set out above evidence to the effect that the shirt was away from the body when the gun was fired, and that this supported a theory that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman. This seems to be a case of a disgruntled employee and one doing his claim for unjust dismissal no good at all.
Whoops -- neglected to include the fact that a shirt can hang away from the body from the back or side as well as from the front; it all depends on whether the individual is leaning forward, sideways, or backward.
There's an example of filling in a blank with information that isn't actually there: "Oh, the shirt was away from the body? Then the victim must have been leaning forward." That's the most likely explanation for a shirt being away from the body, but it's far from the only one. In a 2-party struggle, Party A might grab Party B's shirt and pull on it as Party B is falling backward, fire a handgun into Party B's body, and achieve essentially the same result as if Party B were leaning over Party A.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
You err. He didn't desire to tell it then; he does now. He said as much -- that he changed his mind about the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Then firing him for giving testimony that helped the defense when that's what you wanted to do in the first place
Is that why they fired him? Where did you read this?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Q&A sessions like this can dance all around larger issues of whether we're discussing an entrance or exit wound, or where said wound appears on the body without (at least in my experience) others noticing that a larger question has been left unanswered.
I'm not claiming this happened in the Z trial (I didn't watch it, so I don't know). But it certainly could have. Witnesses are required to answer the questions put to them, but as Mousethief pointed out above, they can't offer testimony that hasn't been prompted by a question.
True, for very broad senses of "prompted".
E.g.,
Q. Officer, on that night, you didn't do X did you?
A. No, I didn't have to do X, because I had already done A, B, and C... or No, I didn't do X, because I thought it would be inappropriate for A, B, and C reasons.
Q. Dr. X, where was wound you just described?
A. Well, just to be clear, there were two wounds, an entrance wound at point P and an exit wound at point Q, etc.
Or:
A. Just to be clear, do you mean the entrance wound or the exit wound?
Or:
A. Yeah the exit wound, it was at point P.
You get the idea. Absent some kind of prior agreement to avoid certain topics, there's no way of preventing a witness from giving certain answers just by not asking certain questions.
I would have guessed that an examination of a medical witness that managed to avoid the crucial questions going to liability would strike at least some of the media types in room as sufficiently odd to be worth reporting on at the time. And as I said above, the whole thing is public record.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
You err. He didn't desire to tell it then; he does now. He said as much -- that he changed his mind about the case.
Then I'm not sure where the conspiracy is, if he genuinely changed his mind after the trial. If he thought then that Martin was shot from the front, consistently with Zimmerman's evidence, and has now reconsidered, and thinks Martin was shot in the back and therefore (probably) murdered in cold blood, that's not a conspiracy. It's a simple mistake.
Only if he thought from the start that the evidence showed Zimmerman's defence to be false, and, presumably, said so in his initial report (because which is the entry wound and which the exit wound is pretty significant, in the examination of a gun shot victim), and would, if asked, have given that as his professional opinion, is there the basis for asserting a conspiracy to get Zimmerman off. But in that case, either the medical expert was a willing participant (why? and if so, why believe anything someone says if they are willing to falsify professional evidence in a murder trial?), or, and this was what was originally suggested on this thread, the prosecutor called him hoping he would somehow fail to state his true opinion. Which would indeed be a conspiracy, but is completely implausible. That sort of thing doesn't happen in real life.
It's not that I think the idea of a conspiracy to get a defendant off implausible - it's that the mechanics of this particular alleged conspiracy don't work.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
. . . And Moo has set out above evidence to the effect that the shirt was away from the body when the gun was fired, and that this supported a theory that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman. This seems to be a case of a disgruntled employee and one doing his claim for unjust dismissal no good at all.
Whoops -- neglected to include the fact that a shirt can hang away from the body from the back or side as well as from the front; it all depends on whether the individual is leaning forward, sideways, or backward.
There were powder burns surrounding the hole in the front of the shirt. If he was shot in the back, how did those powder burns get there?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Moo, I'm not claiming he was shot in the back; someone else is apparently making (and has now perhaps withdrawn) that claim.
Neither am I claiming there was a conspiracy to get Z off.
That said, my job brings me into occasional contact with kids of Martin's age. The current fashion on high school campuses I visit (things might be different in Florida) seems to be for adolescent males to wear loose, large clothing. In a few cases, it's a wonder those clothers stay on them.
From what I've seen, it wouldn't be that hard to grab hold of the front of someone's large, loose hoodie, and as he twisted away from me trying to get loose, end up with some portion of his back toward me while I still had part of the front of his hoodie in my hand.
What would happen if I shot him at that moment? "The front" of something the size of a tall guy's hoodie comprises a fairly substantial area, especially at close range; so does a tall guy's back.
I don't claim this happened. I don't even think it's especially likely. I do think it's possible, though, that a shot could be fired through the front of a hoodie but into the back of its wearer.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Pure speculation Porridge and not consistent with any of the other evidence given. Indeed, it is totally inconsistent with the evidence of a bystander who saw a person dressed in the same coloured top as Martin on top of a person dressed in clothing coloured as Zimmerman's. And a colleague who practises in crime assures me that, at least here, that or a minor variation on it is a standard question. A well prepped expert witness knows how to go from there.
Golden Key, TV shows and movies are not generally a good place to obtain an understanding of litigation in practice. What you refer to from your watching experience is pure fantasy.
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.
It would be lovely if that were true, but we've had ample evidence, mostly thru the innocence project linked above, that that is not the case, at least in the US-- even with capital cases where the stakes are literally life-and-death. Again, I don't know that this particular case was botched or mishandled, but one certainly can't say with confidence that is was not simply because it was a murder trial.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Golden Key, TV shows and movies are not generally a good place to obtain an understanding of litigation in practice. What you refer to from your watching experience is pure fantasy.
...which is why I made a point of saying I didn't know how often it happened in real life.
However, shows a) often do "straight-from-the-news plots", and b) have advisors for the technical legal stuff. Plus legal procedural novels are often written by lawyers, and then get made into films/shows. So there may be some truth to the portrayals
quote:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.
They *should* be thoroughly prepared. But they often screw up. Did you read any of the innocence project links I posted? If not, try the Innocence Project. It's one of many groups who work to help clear wrongly-convicted persons.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
You err. He didn't desire to tell it then; he does now. He said as much -- that he changed his mind about the case.
A medical examiner who changes his mind about whether a bullet entered the chest or the back isn't exactly going to survive a cross-examination NOW, is he?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.
Not necessarily. One of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with prosecutorial misconduct, Connick v. Thompson [PDF], dealt with a murder trial during which the prosecution deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court held that suppressing evidence in order to obtain a conviction in a capital case does not qualify as misconduct or, if it does, not to the degree where any penalty should apply. Ginsberg's dissent (starting on p. 32 of the PDF) is particularly scathing and details most of the flaws in the opinion of the court.
At any rate, given that prosecutors face no repercussions for withholding evidence and have demonstrated a willingness to do so even in capital murder cases, why the automatic assumption that this doesn't happen in other cases?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Pure speculation Porridge and not consistent with any of the other evidence given. Indeed, it is totally inconsistent with the evidence of a bystander who saw a person dressed in the same coloured top as Martin on top of a person dressed in clothing coloured as Zimmerman's. And a colleague who practises in crime assures me that, at least here, that or a minor variation on it is a standard question. A well prepped expert witness knows how to go from there.
Which is why I said I didn't think the scenario was likely, merely possible.
Nor is the speculation quite pure. Martin was wearing a hoodie; Martin was over 6 feet tall. It isn't even "totally inconsistent with the evidence of a bystander," who saw only part of the confrontation / struggle between Z and M. That confrontation went on for some minutes, and the bystander (if I recall correctly) saw only part of it -- neither the beginning nor the end.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.
I may be misremembering, but I think the most serious charge possible in Z's trial was manslaughter, not murder.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
My bad: the charges were manslaughter or second-degree murder. Of course, Z was acquitted on both charges, and it's hard to see how the jury, given the testimony they heard and the instructions they were given, could have done otherwise.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
You err. He didn't desire to tell it then; he does now. He said as much -- that he changed his mind about the case.
Then I'm not sure where the conspiracy is, if he genuinely changed his mind after the trial. If he thought then that Martin was shot from the front, consistently with Zimmerman's evidence, and has now reconsidered, and thinks Martin was shot in the back and therefore (probably) murdered in cold blood, that's not a conspiracy. It's a simple mistake.
In this copy of his his autopsy report, the medical examiner states that "The entrance wound is located on the left chest ... the wound track passes directly from front to back ... There is no wound of exit."
It's hard to see how Dr. Bao could reconcile that with the idea that Martin was shot in the back - but perhaps he's not actually claiming that. The "ME now says shot in the back" idea seems to have originated with this Alternet article which now includes this note at the end:
quote:
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story said that Dr. Bao claimed Martin had been shot from the back. That cannot be verified at this time. Reports indicate that he did however say that examiniation of the wound revealed that Martin could not have been on top of Zimmerman at the shooting, and the physical evidence indicated that Martin could not have been the aggressor.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not necessarily. One of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with prosecutorial misconduct, Connick v. Thompson [PDF], dealt with a murder trial during which the prosecution deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court held that suppressing evidence in order to obtain a conviction in a capital case does not qualify as misconduct or, if it does, not to the degree where any penalty should apply.
Huh? As I read it, it's a civil case deciding whether civil liability as against the district attorney's office for failure to train prosecutors on their disclosure obligations was established on these facts. It doesn't say the prosecution can deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence.
As far as I can tell from Scalia's concurring opinion, the prosecutor (Gerry Deegan) who deliberately witheld the evidence confessed to a colleague shortly before his death. The colleague then kept quiet about this for five years, a decision that appropriately led to disciplinary consequences. One can only assume that if Deegan were still alive when this was discovered, he too would have been facing discliplinary consequences -- hopefully not trivial ones either.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
Huh? As I read it, it's a civil case deciding whether civil liability as against the district attorney's office for failure to train prosecutors on their disclosure obligations was established on these facts. It doesn't say the prosecution can deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence.
That's the practical upshot of the result. Combined with the existing absolute immunity enjoyed by prosecutors, this decision closed off the last avenue a wronged defendant would have available for seeking redress for government attempts to frame and execute him. If there's no consequences attached to doing so, why can't prosecutors deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence? A legal prohibition without an enforcement mechanism isn't really a legal prohibition.
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
As far as I can tell from Scalia's concurring opinion, the prosecutor (Gerry Deegan) who deliberately witheld the evidence confessed to a colleague shortly before his death.
Given that prosecutions for capital crimes are rarely handled by a single individual, this seems more like locating a conveniently dead scapegoat on whom to blame all past bad actions. I'm not saying Deegan was innocent, just that I doubt he was acting alone.
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
The colleague then kept quiet about this for five years, a decision that appropriately led to disciplinary consequences. One can only assume that if Deegan were still alive when this was discovered, he too would have been facing discliplinary consequences -- hopefully not trivial ones either.
Yeah, maybe he'd have gotten a public reprimand too! That's pretty comparable to fourteen years on death row. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.
Not necessarily. One of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with prosecutorial misconduct, Connick v. Thompson [PDF], dealt with a murder trial during which the prosecution deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court held that suppressing evidence in order to obtain a conviction in a capital case does not qualify as misconduct or, if it does, not to the degree where any penalty should apply. Ginsberg's dissent (starting on p. 32 of the PDF) is particularly scathing and details most of the flaws in the opinion of the court.
At any rate, given that prosecutors face no repercussions for withholding evidence and have demonstrated a willingness to do so even in capital murder cases, why the automatic assumption that this doesn't happen in other cases?
Here, not only would a prosecutor who did that be dismissed, but would also be struck off (disbarred) for breach of the Bar Rules. It's a horrifying decision.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I don't know how that judge was appointed, but judges in my state are appointed until age 72 (it's 70 for Federal judges, by the Constitution s.72) as long as they behave themselves*. A judge who does not can be removed from office by a vote of both houses of Parliament. I suspect that were a judge to sleep with a person who was at the same time conducting cases in that court, the most probable result would be resignation. Otherwise, there would be a quick removal. The prosecutor would be struck off.
* The Latin for this is quamdiu se bene gesserit, from the time when a judge's commission was written in Latin. One of our Shipmates has the board name of Bene Gesserit.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, maybe he'd have gotten a public reprimand too! That's pretty comparable to fourteen years on death row.
I have no idea what the consequences for the prosecutor would have been. Hopefully more severe than that. In Canada I would expect that he would have been fired and lost his license to practice. (And probably sued, too -- not easy to sue a prosecutor in Canada but offhand I'd guess this one meets the standard.)
If you're right that American law has protected prosecutors from suffering any real consequences for deliberate misconduct, then yes that's a real problem. But that's not what this case says.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
If you're right that American law has protected prosecutors from suffering any real consequences for deliberate misconduct, then yes that's a real problem. But that's not what this case says.
In one egregious case, that of the Duke lacrosse players, the prosecutor was disbarred and convicted of criminal contempt. He was sentenced to one day in jail. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
* The Latin for this is quamdiu se bene gesserit, from the time when a judge's commission was written in Latin. One of our Shipmates has the board name of Bene Gesserit.
I'd be willing to bet they were quite unfamiliar with this legal phrase or this use of the words, but rather took the name from Dune.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In another recent case there's been problems with the Illinois Circuit judges who have been very quick to enable copyright trolls. A judge resigned after being charged with heroin addiction. It came to light when his fellow judge died of cocaine overdose in his hunting cabin.
judge charged with heroin use
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
As far as I can tell from Scalia's concurring opinion, the prosecutor (Gerry Deegan) who deliberately witheld the evidence confessed to a colleague shortly before his death. The colleague then kept quiet about this for five years, a decision that appropriately led to disciplinary consequences. One can only assume that if Deegan were still alive when this was discovered, he too would have been facing discliplinary consequences -- hopefully not trivial ones either.
And here I am thinking Mike Nifong was as bad as it gets.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Yeah this is probably best seen as a bit of revenge rather than any indication of what happened on the night Zimmerman killed Trayvon.
I did allude to that, yes. She is a convicted liar - plead guilty to perjury.
If what she's saying has any merit, the fact that they're in a bitter divorce pretty much negates anything that comes out of her mouth.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I wonder also whether the interviewer manipulated her into saying things she didn't really believe.
After the Virginia Tech shootings some reporters wanted to write stories saying that everyone was clamoring for the resignation of the university president or for gun control. They had their stories all written, and just needed quotes. In fact, everyone here was too numb to say very much. I heard about a student who was very distressed that she was pushed into saying things against the president that she strongly disagreed with.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Meanwhile, back at the autopsy ranch, Dr. Shiping Bao, whose testimony in the Zimmerman case raised questions, is in the news again.
Curioser and curioser. Florida criminal justice is beginning to resemble a soap opera. Is Bao trawling for fame? Was Hermann concealing evidence? Is Volusia County rife with corruption? Tune in for the next autopsy and see . . . !
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
