|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Zimmerman acquitted
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
And I was being ironic, given the perjury charges over the couple's collecting substantial sums through a website for Z's defense, and then requesting -- was it legal aid or lowered bail? -- because they allegedly had no money.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Lowered bail, as I recall.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Oh, well, but, he has incurred substantial legal bills. Let's not forget that.
Has he? I thought Florida's spectacularly ill-written self defense statutes required the state to compensate the legal fees of anyone who successfully mounted a self-defense claim when prosecuted. I recall reading that somewhere, but can't remember for certain.
According to this NBC article "Zimmerman's request [for expert witness and other expenses] would be based on a Florida law that says a defendant who's acquitted isn't liable for costs associated with his or her case. It must be approved by a judge or a clerk." But it doesn't appear to cover attorney's fees, nor does it have anything to do with self-defense claims.
The statute referred to in this Orlando Sentinel article says
quote:
939.06 Acquitted defendant not liable for costs.—
(1) A defendant in a criminal prosecution who is acquitted or discharged is not liable for any costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office, or for any charge of subsistence while detained in custody. If the defendant has paid any taxable costs, or fees required under s. 27.52(1)(b), in the case, the clerk or judge shall give him or her a certificate of the payment of such costs, with the items thereof, which, when audited and approved according to law, shall be refunded to the defendant.
(2) To receive a refund under this section, a defendant must submit a request for the refund to the Justice Administrative Commission on a form and in a manner prescribed by the commission. The defendant must attach to the form an order from the court demonstrating the defendant’s right to the refund and the amount of the refund.
IANAL, but this sounds a lot more likely to cover reimbursement for fees paid directly to the court system, rather than hundreds of thousands of dollars in expert witness expenses.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
More news on America's model citizen.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-custody-domestic-incident-involving-gun/story?id=20203329
quote:
George Zimmerman was released without charges today after his wife called 911 to say Zimmerman punched his father-in-law in the nose and threatened to shoot him and his wife.
Zimmerman, acquitted in July of the murder of teenager Trayvon Martin, claimed that he was acting in a "defensive manner" during the incident, according to police, who later added that they never found a gun on Zimmerman.
Nevertheless, Zimmerman was handcuffed and questioned by police in Lake Mary, Fla., according to Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Earlier you said that you think eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. Do you think expert testimony is also unreliable? It was an expert witness, a medical examiner who testified that Martin's shirt was not next to his skin when he was shot.
Oftentimes yes.
So we can't trust eyewitnesses and we can't trust expert witnesses. One is left wondering exactly whom we can trust when it comes to deciding whether someone is guilty or innocent of a crime.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Who is "we," Marvin?
In the usual run of things, the only people who need to trust, or distrust, any testimony are those on the jury.
Decades after the fact, plenty of people still believe that O.J. Simpson got away with murder. Had he been convicted, plenty of people would no doubt be convinced he was, nevertheless, innocent.
In the justice system we actually have, though, the only opinions that matter belong to the folks in the jury box -- whose access to various information about any given case is restricted (or supposed to be), at least as compared to what the general public has access to.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Who is "we," Marvin?
On this thread, we have seen eyewitness testimony that supports Zimmerman's version of events dismissed. We have now seen expert witness testimony that supports Zimmerman's version of events dismissed. I'm left wondering exactly what sorts of evidence in favour of Zimmerman's version of events the dismissers would accept.
I also can't escape the thought that if the evidence from the eyewitness and expert witness was disagreeing with Zimmerman's version of events, we'd be hearing a whole lot less about how notoriously unreliable those forms of evidence are. But maybe that's just me being cynical...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Earlier you said that you think eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. Do you think expert testimony is also unreliable? It was an expert witness, a medical examiner who testified that Martin's shirt was not next to his skin when he was shot.
Oftentimes yes.
So we can't trust eyewitnesses and we can't trust expert witnesses. One is left wondering exactly whom we can trust when it comes to deciding whether someone is guilty or innocent of a crime.
Jurors do not have to decide if a person is innocent. They have to decide if the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The jurors in Zimmerman's murder trial were obviously not satisfied that the prosecution had proven its case to that standard.
If we don't believe either expert or eye-witnes evidence, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has not proven its case as required, and the accused must be acquitted.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Who is "we," Marvin?
On this thread, we have seen eyewitness testimony that supports Zimmerman's version of events dismissed. We have now seen expert witness testimony that supports Zimmerman's version of events dismissed. I'm left wondering exactly what sorts of evidence in favour of Zimmerman's version of events the dismissers would accept.
I also can't escape the thought that if the evidence from the eyewitness and expert witness was disagreeing with Zimmerman's version of events, we'd be hearing a whole lot less about how notoriously unreliable those forms of evidence are. But maybe that's just me being cynical...
Well, call me a cynic as well then.
What mystifies me is that evidence is being called into question not because it is inconsistent with some other piece of evidence, but because it is inconsistent with a bunch of presuppositions about the correct outcome.
Because here's the thing about dismissing the evidence in this case: it doesn't leave you with contrary evidence that supports Zimmerman's guilt. It just leaves you with even larger, more gaping evidentiary holes than we already have.
It seems to me that there's a desire to reduce the 'evidence' down to what we had at the very beginning: a kid who bought candy was shot dead by somebody. Which is a very neat, tidy story for the 24-hour news cycle that can't be arsed to investigate further.
But as I've said before, the whole point of that narrative is that reduces the shooter to a cypher. And it's the shooter who is on trial. It's HIS side of the story that needs to be investigated further, much more than the dead kid.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But as I've said before, the whole point of that narrative is that reduces the shooter to a cypher. And it's the shooter who is on trial. It's HIS side of the story that needs to be investigated further, much more than the dead kid.
Well regardless of the outcome of the Martin case, we know the shooter is a scumbag with a history of domestic violence and some serious family problems, including allegations of molesting one of his cousins and apparently threatening his wife - or not threatening, the wife is a convicted liar too after all.
Both sides are guilty of manipulating this story to serve their own political views. As more comes out about Zimmerman unfortunately those who made him out to be some sort of American hero fighting the scourge of teenage gangsters are being made to look like fools by George himself. I make no claims that Martin is an angel, but he's dead and has no chance to redeem his image. Zimmerman does and look how good of a job he's doing.
At least Casey Anthony had the good sense to keep her head down.
[ 10. September 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Marvin and orfeo,
Testimony, either eyewitness or expert, should always be questioned.
Human memory does not work as most think. It does not reliably record what happens and actually can change what it thinks it recorded.
Expert testimony is an interpretation of what happened. The quality of this testimony is highly variable.
Both of these statements are demonstrable.
As to the charge some are viewing the case through presupposition; I think you are correct. But not simply for one viewpoint.
But I am not sure your point. There is justifiable outrage aplenty regardless of the acquittal.
[ 10. September 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I do apologize, since this material probably does not belong here, but lilBuddha's reference above to "outrage" happened to coincide with a discussion of the linked news story.
I guess I really have to start researching my emigration options. The gummint must be taking crazy pills.
--------------------
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
Whoops -- worked when I first clicked on it, doesn't now.
Let's try this link instead.
And just in case that's a dud, too, it appears that Iowa, since 2011, has allowed blind people to purchase firearms and carry them in public.
--------------------
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
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Here's Zimmerman's lawyer's interesting commment on the domestic dispute:
"He acted appropriately. He never took the weapon out. The only thing he really did, which is what he told the police, was on the outside of his shirt, he made sure the gun wasn’t moving anywhere and didn’t do anything because Mr. Dean [Zimmerman's father-in-law] was sort of coming at him..."
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's Zimmerman's lawyer's interesting commment on the domestic dispute:
"He acted appropriately. He never took the weapon out. The only thing he really did, which is what he told the police, was on the outside of his shirt, he made sure the gun wasn’t moving anywhere and didn’t do anything because Mr. Dean [Zimmerman's father-in-law] was sort of coming at him..."
Is this the lawyer who just dropped him as his client for any non-Martin business and claimed Zim owes him money?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-lawyer-quits/t/story?id=20212533
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Testimony, either eyewitness or expert, should always be questioned.
Sure.
And that's the very essence of our legal system.
But my point is that the purpose of the questioning is to look for inconsistencies and contradictions that might lead one to prefer one piece of evidence to another. It is not the purpose to discard evidence completely because of some philosophical point about how inherently unreliable ALL evidence is. If you go down that route, what are you left with? You're left with no methodology whatsoever for assessing guilt or responsibility.
I dealt with plenty of evidence in my 2 years working for a tribunal. I know none of it's perfect. But I also know it's not all of equal value. One is not looking for perfect evidence, one is looking for the best evidence. And the best pieces of evidence are the ones that are congruent with other independent sources.
The whole reason I believe Zimmerman's story about being on the ground when he shot Martin is that there are other pieces of evidence that are congruent with it. Sure, I suppose it's vaguely possible that not only is he lying but that all the corroborating evidence is mistaken, but Occam's Razor tells me the more likely explanation is that those independents of evidence match up with each other because they're true.
The legal rightness or wrongness of Zimmerman's actions is a matter of law and the law is certainly up for debate (stand your ground laws, readily available gun permits etc etc), but I cannot understand casting doubts on the facts of the last minute or so of Martin's life, when there isn't any evidence that I've seen that contradicts Zimmerman's version and several pieces of evidence that support it. Whether it's Zimmerman's physical injuries, gunshot analysis or neighbour's testimony, it's consistent with Zimmerman's account. For Zimmerman's account to be wrong, you have to postulate that multiple other types of evidence are all wrong as well.
If you want to show that the eyewitness who saw Zimmerman on the ground is wrong, give me a piece of physical evidence showing he was on top. If you want to show that the gunshot analysis of Martin's shirt hanging down (because he was facing downwards but off the ground) was wrong, give me an eyewitness who saw Martin on his back. Don't give me philosophical commentary about the inherent unreliability of evidence. Give me contrary evidence such that one of the two must be wrong. Then there's an evidentiary question to be resolved to decide which is more reliable.
[ 11. September 2013, 06:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
My point was simply that testimonies are not fact. Whether it is reasonable to believe the testimonies in this case is a separate issue.
I suppose we could review what we know about that, but quite frankly, I am tired of this and the discussion makes me ill.
I should have stayed away as it is merely re-hashing, but I let my irritation at the misuse of the word "fact" and the misrepresentations I think this confers on the situation draw me in.
I think I shall take my own council and bow out here. Fight on, if you will, my brothers and sisters; I'm out.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
PS: People keep saying Trayvon was "no angel" like he was some kind of thug. (And why should he be held to the impossibly high standard of angel-hood anyway?) Smoked some marijuana? Lots of people, including me, have. Smoking grass most certainly doesn't put one in the thug category. Had a few disciplinary problems at school? Well, even type B introverted nerdly personality me got into trouble a few times. Trayvon sounds like he was a fairly normal teenager.
Zimmerman on the other hand . . . Police Chief: "Zimmerman's Another 'Sandy Hook' Waiting to Happen"
[ 13. September 2013, 21:06: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
PS: People keep saying Trayvon was "no angel" like he was some kind of thug. (And why should he be held to the impossibly high standard of angel-hood anyway?) Smoked some marijuana? Lots of people, including me, have. Smoking grass most certainly doesn't put one in the thug category. Had a few disciplinary problems at school? Well, even type B introverted nerdly personality me got into trouble a few times. Trayvon sounds like he was a fairly normal teenager.
Well, that's the standard that's typically applied when a white American kills a black American. Anything short of angelhood on the part of the deceased is taken as proof that he had it coming (and that society is probably better off without him).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
New twist. The coroner who examined Trayvon Martin, who was recently fired from his job at the ME office, is speaking out. In particular:
quote:
According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin's autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman's statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin's back.
Story here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
New twist. The coroner who examined Trayvon Martin, who was recently fired from his job at the ME office, is speaking out. In particular:
quote:
According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin's autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman's statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin's back.
Now that would be evidence worth considering, if true. But were is the evidence for this assertion and how on earth was it missed at the trial?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
New twist. The coroner who examined Trayvon Martin, who was recently fired from his job at the ME office, is speaking out. In particular:
quote:
According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin's autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman's statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin's back.
Now that would be evidence worth considering, if true. But were is the evidence for this assertion and how on earth was it missed at the trial?
Indeed it is. If you read the link, the (now fired) coroner is claiming the prosecution was hand-picked to intentionally blow the case by ignoring key pieces of evidence & constraining his (the coroner's) testimony. So now this ever-shifting case becomes, (much like Mrs. Zimmerman's accusations): is this a disgruntled employee seeking revenge, or a heroic whistleblower who was fired in retaliation for now following script?
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Now that would be evidence worth considering, if true. But were is the evidence for this assertion and how on earth was it missed at the trial?
The coroner can only answer the questions the prosecution or defense attorneys ask him -- he doesn't get to freestyle.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So now this ever-shifting case becomes, (much like Mrs. Zimmerman's accusations): is this a disgruntled employee seeking revenge, or a heroic whistleblower who was fired in retaliation for now following script?
Here's an account of Bao's firing from yesterday, before he made his accusations.
quote:
Shiping Bao, the medical examiner for the Trayvon Martin case, has been fired.
Bao was let go from the Volusia County Medical Examiner's Office last week, officials said Wednesday.
Authorities provided a copy of his termination letter, but did not specify a reason.
The letter says Bao was given a choice to resign.
He didn't. So, he was terminated Friday.
I'm not sure this spreads any particular light, except to note that he was apparently offered the graceful exit of a resignation but turned it down and was fired.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Now that would be evidence worth considering, if true. But were is the evidence for this assertion and how on earth was it missed at the trial?
The coroner can only answer the questions the prosecution or defense attorneys ask him -- he doesn't get to freestyle.
But, if we're talking about the amse cornoner, wasn't he examined by the prosecution about Martin's cause of death? How - no matter what the questions he was asked - can he have omitted to say that he thought the wound was from the back? Wasn't the forensic medical report open to scrutiny in the trial at all?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The prosecutor would have asked him a general question: What did you find when you examined the deceased? The answer would have been along the lines: I found a gunshot wound (saying where) which penetrated the chest and damaged the (left lung/heart/what damage was done). A prosecutor could have asked: When you examined the deceased, did you find a gunshot wound to his chest? only had it been agreed that such shortening of the evidence could occur. Even then, the way is wide open for the doctor to reply: No, I found a gunshot wound to his back.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The prosecutor "would have"? Should have, maybe. If the Prosecution wasn't interested in getting a conviction, they would not have.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The prosecutor "would have"? Should have, maybe. If the Prosecution wasn't interested in getting a conviction, they would not have.
I could believe 'not interested in getting a conviction'. Plenty of advocates do trials without much personal motivation to get a particular result, and a prosecutor who had more sympathy for the defendant than the deceased might well have been going through the motions.
What is implausible is that a prosecutor who actively wanted Zimmerman acquitted would call a witness whom he knew could torpedo Zimmerman's defence with the simple and obvious observation that Martin was shot in the back, in the hope that this would never get mentioned in court. That just doesn't happen. It makes no sense. That's exactly the sort of thing you can't stop witnesses saying. Every advocate knows that there's a risk of any witness blurting out something unhelpful - that's the risk of trial - but when you know that the witness has something unhelpful that he's itching to share, you bloody well don't call him.
I'd believe that prosecution negligence contributed to the acquittal. I don't believe that there was some conspiracy to get Zimmerman off which included calling an expert witness whom the prosecution knew would disprove the defence, and hoping that he would refrain from saying that very obvious thing.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The prosecutor "would have"? Should have, maybe. If the Prosecution wasn't interested in getting a conviction, they would not have.
I cannot speak for what happens in the US - or Florida - but here it is invariable practice for the prosecution to call the doctor who carried out the autopsy.
And from Eliab:
I could believe 'not interested in getting a conviction'. Plenty of advocates do trials without much personal motivation to get a particular result, and a prosecutor who had more sympathy for the defendant than the deceased might well have been going through the motions.
History here shows that prosecutors who do trials with "personal motivation" - be that a burning belief in the guilt of the accused, or in playing to the press for good headlines, find themselves eased out of prosecuting work. A good prosecutor follows proper guidelines, maintains detachment, and presents the case calmly and ethically. Perhaps not having elected prosecutors makes a difference.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What is implausible is that a prosecutor who actively wanted Zimmerman acquitted would call a witness whom he knew could torpedo Zimmerman's defence with the simple and obvious observation that Martin was shot in the back, in the hope that this would never get mentioned in court. That just doesn't happen. It makes no sense.
This - very much this. You'd have to be truly desperate to believe at all costs that there was a determined prosecution effort/conspiracy not to get Z convicted before you'd call this hypothesis in as support, ISTM. As Eliab says, it makes no sense.
[ 15. September 2013, 09:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't believe that there was some conspiracy to get Zimmerman off which included calling an expert witness whom the prosecution knew would disprove the defence, and hoping that he would refrain from saying that very obvious thing.
I don't know how often it happens in the real world...but that's exactly the way it plays out in many episodes of just about ever crime drama I've ever seen.
The American legal system has many false convictions--due to mistakes, or poor legal representation, or to pressure convict someone and close a case, or prejudice, or corruption. Many wrongly-convicted people have been executed.
I don't know what did or didn't happen in this case, But the American legal system is massively broken. Now, at least, there are groups like the Innocence Project to help out.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Code fix -Gwai
[ 15. September 2013, 11:53: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Sorry for the code mess.
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What is implausible is that a prosecutor who actively wanted Zimmerman acquitted would call a witness whom he knew could torpedo Zimmerman's defence with the simple and obvious observation that Martin was shot in the back, in the hope that this would never get mentioned in court. That just doesn't happen. It makes no sense.
This - very much this. You'd have to be truly desperate to believe at all costs that there was a determined prosecution effort/conspiracy not to get Z convicted before you'd call this hypothesis in as support, ISTM. As Eliab says, it makes no sense.
While I have no special knowledge of this case, what reading I've done suggests that the initial investigation into Martin's death was (A) slow, and (B) not especially thorough. The people doing the investigating knew Zimmerman; they'd been getting regular calls from him for years; they may even have regarded him almost as "one of their own." I believe that Zimmerman was not even arrested at first (I may be mistaken on this point).
Protests and Martin's parents demands are what prompted further -- and later -- investigation.
Testimony depends on the results of investigation. This need not have been a "conspiracy to get Zimmerman off." (FWIW, I have a hard time swallowing this too, though I do think it's within the realm of possibility.)
It might, however, have been the result of a "conspiracy" to avoid public scandal splashing all over the local police & local DA's office.
The police, the prosecutor, and the ME are all on the same "team," prosecutorally speaking The ME's testimony, if based in fact (and not, as has been suggested, a fabrication by a disgruntled ex-employee) would have implicated the police (for flawed / incomplete / sloppy investigation) and/or the prosecutorial staff for pursuing a case with so little or such lousy evidence. If the ME actually possessed exculpatory evidence, and these others on the team knew it, he'd have been under colossal pressure to keep it to himself, and he'd have been "coached" by the DA handling the case to avoid such revelations -- less with the goal of acquitting Zimmerman than with the goal of protecting members of the local prosecutorial team.
--------------------
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
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The people doing the investigating knew Zimmerman; they'd been getting regular calls from him for years; they may even have regarded him almost as "one of their own."
I think this could really cut both ways. When I have worked in jobs dealing with the general public, our regulars (people we saw often enough to recognize them) ran about 75%/25% dreaded/loved. Oftentimes someone who hangs around a lot is just a pain in the ass. Especially if they are a wannabe and think they could do your job better than you without any training. Zimmerman has been portrayed as a wannabe cop in the press- I don't know if it's true.
Probably the police's feelings about him depend on how many of Zimmerman's calls were actually helpful to them, versus "Oh God it's that crank calling about the busted streetlight again, why can't he get a hobby".
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I think this could really cut both ways . . . Zimmerman has been portrayed as a wannabe cop in the press- I don't know if it's true.
Probably the police's feelings about him depend on how many of Zimmerman's calls were actually helpful to them, versus "Oh God it's that crank calling about the busted streetlight again, why can't he get a hobby".
Of course, you're right. Frequent callers / visitors seem more likely to get themselves regarded as pains in the tookus. The quality -- or lack thereof -- of the original investigation is what makes me suspect they regard him as "one of theirs."
I think (but wouldn't want to swear to this) the media reported Zimmerman as a "wannabe" largely on the basis of his having taken criminal justice courses somewhere, but ultimately "washing out" in some fashion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think (but wouldn't want to swear to this) the media reported Zimmerman as a "wannabe" largely on the basis of his having taken criminal justice courses somewhere, but ultimately "washing out" in some fashion.
AIUI Zimmermann didn't 'wash out'. One of his instructors testified at the trial and spoke highly of him.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Probably the police's feelings about him depend on how many of Zimmerman's calls were actually helpful to them, versus "Oh God it's that crank calling about the busted streetlight again, why can't he get a hobby".
Of course, you're right. Frequent callers / visitors seem more likely to get themselves regarded as pains in the tookus. The quality -- or lack thereof -- of the original investigation is what makes me suspect they regard him as "one of theirs."
I think (but wouldn't want to swear to this) the media reported Zimmerman as a "wannabe" largely on the basis of his having taken criminal justice courses somewhere, but ultimately "washing out" in some fashion.
Somewhere upthread I posted a link to a list of all the calls Zimmermann made to the police over a period of seven years. The total was less than fifty. Many of them reported such things as potholes and open garage doors at houses where the residents were known to be away. There are far more calls about suspicious circumstances than suspicious characters.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Somewhere upthread I posted a link to a list of all the calls Zimmermann made to the police over a period of seven years. The total was less than fifty. Many of them reported such things as potholes and open garage doors at houses where the residents were known to be away. There are far more calls about suspicious circumstances than suspicious characters.
Moo
As a raw number, 50 calls in 7 years doesn't actually mean much, and police check out suspicious circumstances along with suspicious characters. Sounds like he called police very roughly every other month (actually a little more often than that) on average
Comparing Z's call frequency with my own: I live in the downtown area of a small city, at the edge of a fairly poor area with many transient residents. My parking lot is shared with an office building where there are counseling services for a substantial population of homeless people. While the homeless people include ex-cons, sex offenders, substance abusers, people with mental illness, etc., and they often create nuisances with noise, litter, clouds of cigarette smoke, and other minor havoc -- I can remember calling the police only once, and I've lived in this general area (though not in this specific residence) for some 25 years.
I dunno; on reflection, 50 calls in 7 years seems like a lot.
--------------------
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
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
New twist. The coroner who examined Trayvon Martin, who was recently fired from his job at the ME office, is speaking out. In particular:
quote:
According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin's autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman's statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin's back.
Story here.
The story has been updated to reflect that the site now says the part about Martin supposedly being shot in the back "cannot be verified at this time". Interesting.
I also note the overt bias of the source, which makes me wonder about the quality of the information...
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Comparing Z's call frequency with my own: I live in the downtown area of a small city, at the edge of a fairly poor area with many transient residents. My parking lot is shared with an office building where there are counseling services for a substantial population of homeless people. While the homeless people include ex-cons, sex offenders, substance abusers, people with mental illness, etc., and they often create nuisances with noise, litter, clouds of cigarette smoke, and other minor havoc -- I can remember calling the police only once, and I've lived in this general area (though not in this specific residence) for some 25 years.
I dunno; on reflection, 50 calls in 7 years seems like a lot.
Not if you are a member of the Neighborhood Watch.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Sorry; I think my semi-tough neighborhood with its disturbed and disturbing throngs of daily visiting malefactors is probably equivalent to being on a neighborhood watch. There were 2-3 times I considered calling the police (over and above the call I made when my car window got shot out). That's still only 4 calls in 25 years, as opposed to 50 in 7. But then, I try to get to know the denizens of my neighborhood, as they're also my constituents. So I have a pretty good idea of what's up when something odd occurs.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
