Home » Uncategorized » May 13, 2013 – Open Thread

May 13, 2013 – Open Thread

OliverWe are now 28 days away from the start of selecting a jury.

This past weekend, we were all shocked to read the comments of Natalie Jackson’s mother, Francis Oliver (pictured left) to black persons who may get a juror notice to get on the Zimmerman jury.

Don’t get eliminated before you even get a chance to be questioned. We definitely don’t want it to the point that all blacks are eliminated because we got over excited and blew our chances. At least give us a chance. Give yourself a chance,” said Oliver.

This must be addressed. The Court Clerk has been notified and the Defense Team has been notified. Now I’d ask that reporters are made aware. Let’s demand her remarks get widely reported and bring about a discussion of what she is advocating for. Read Full Story here Bay 9 News

We await the higher court’s decision on deposing Mr. Crump.  If you haven’t submitted a vote, please do so and let us know your prediction.

For newcomers, please know that racist remarks will be trashed and not posted.  If you are presenting yourself as a George Zimmerman supporter, please keep in mind this man is in a fight for his life.  Conduct yourself in a way that won’t bring heartache and/or embarrassment to the Zimmerman family.

If you’d like to share something privately, you can email me at nettles@bell.net

For those who can, please use the link at the top of the page to make a donation.  Thank you for helping.

Advertisements

179 thoughts on “May 13, 2013 – Open Thread

  1. It is virtually impossible to discuss this case without including race. Even this thread begins with it. That said, I am going to try an experiment by not mentioning the word for a while to see how it works. Soooooooooooo, if my comments begin to sound incomplete, illogical or silly, PLEASE say so.

  2. Just wanted to bring up something pokerfacetodd discusses in one of his more recent videos. Trevon had a much shorter much more direct route available to him if he was “just walking home”. Could it be possible that once spotted by GZ Trevon decided to follow GZ instead of the other way around that we were fed by the media? http://imgur.com/1N08wwE

    • “Could it be possible that once spotted by GZ Trevon decided to follow GZ instead of the other way around that we were fed by the media?”

      I’m not quite sure I understand how that would work.

      Or what he would hope to gain by doing so.

      If Trayvon comes in by Frank’s house, and waits for George’s truck to get out of the way, why would he follow the truck? Would he have some reason to think it wouldn’t just keep on driving? And to think it wouldn’t be driving faster than he could walk?

      It’s like the dog chasing a car, what’s he going to do if he does catch it? Bite the bumper?

      I agree that it’s somewhat curious that he doesn’t take the short way via Long Oak, assuming he knows the layout of the neighborhood well enough to know where it runs.

      How could he forsee that George would follow him with the truck and then wouldn’t have sense enough to stay in the truck?

      • “Follow” is an imprecise verb. I don’t know what the Captain had in mind, other than there is a route going the opposite direction around the circle drive. When Zimmerman said, on the NEN call, “he’s coming toward me now,” we don’t know if the direction of Martin’s travel is the best/shortest way to get “home,” or if he is taking a slight deviation from that path in order to view and visually taunt Zimmerman. If Martin is deviating from the best path “home,” then he is, in a sense, following Zimmerman.

        Zimmerman’s account (and common sense) tells us that the person who decided to close distance to arm’s reach was Martin. That movement may or may not be considered “following” as well.

        • Wait a minute, are we talking Martin following Zimmerman when they first lay eyes on each other by Frank’s house, or not until after Zimmerman parks and gets out of the truck?

          • I speculate that what the Captain had in mind was that Martin entered the RTL at a place where he could go right (short route) or go left, and Martin chose to go left becuase he saw Zimmerman. IOW, Martin saw Zimmerman before Zimmerman saw Martin. I think that’s pretty wild speculation, and there is no evidence to support it. Witness 8 says Martin saw Zimmerman looking at him (not that she’s credible), Zimmerman’s account reads as though Zimmerman saw Martin before Martin saw Zimmerman. I think the geography admits Martin going by the mail hut almost immediately on entry to the RTL, and turning left from there is the shortest way “home.”

            • This case just gets stranger.

              People on the “Zimmerman side” coming up with theories that conflict with Zimmerman’s version and people on the “Martin side” coming up with theories that conflict with Witness 8’s version.

              • This kind of speculation is just nonsense. If you look at a map of the RTL, there’s basically no difference in distance between turning right from the cut-through and going down Long Oak, and turning left and going down to the T where he actually went. He’d probably go the way he was most familiar with, having driven in and out of the neighborhood with his dad/cousin/dad’s girlfriend, etc.

                • Well, I did say “…assuming he knows the layout of the neighborhood well enough to know where it runs.”

                  Considering the location of Brandy Green’s house, though, I’m wondering if most of his riding with others wasn’t through the back (east side) gate instead of the front/main (north side) gate.


                  • In this video made by Marinade Dave, he did a walkthrough with Frank Taaffe at the complex. Listen closely to Frank who says the FBI told him TM actually entered the complex 2 cut throughs over from Frank’s house. Frank said if TM did come through that way, to be by his house, TM was taking the longer of 3 possible routes home. (If indeed he was really headed there when GZ saw him).

                  • Sounds to me like the FBI knows what path he took. We also know that FDLE has ping maps in their files they didn’t share with the defense. But the defense found them when going through the files on Jan, 9, 2013.

                    • I still hope the defense will recreate their version of what happened in 3D or on a video and maybe even have a small replica of the scene with pertinent people and objects in it to display in court,. However, they may have no money to do that but I would not be surprised has done that to show how George pursued Martin and murdered him in cold blood.

                      I also advocate the jury visiting the scene with similar light conditions.

  3. Also a question for our legal minds. Judge nelson has issued subpoena duces tecum for several major items that we have yet to see notice of compliance for yet. Specifically the social media for Trevon and Dee Dee as well as voice exemplars for trevon. What happens if June 10th arrives and the defense is not in possession of these discovery items. Does the judge just say oh well, the show must go on?

    • It’s up to defense counsel to move for continuance and provide good cause for the motion to be granted. Absence of discovery that was ordered by the court has to be explained, should the absence be made an issue by defense. If the evidence doesn’t exist, the court won’t delay. If it exists but hasn’t been produced, the court will satisfy itself that defense has been diligent in pursuit of the evidence. There is a range of possibilities, but in the end, whether or not the show goes on as scheduled has an “it depends” answer.

      I think the defense has those pieces of evidence, BTW. The public record is full of holes, compared with what is in the parties’ hands.

      • I still believe the trial may be delayed. George has other options to do that as I have mentioned previously. It may very well be that Nelson is the one who will delay it.

    • In all of Cashill’s articles, he accurately details what happened and points out the total failure of the media. I have NEVER seen anyone if media deny what he writes.

      Chip Bennett has had a handle on this case from the start. All of his posts are logical. Thanks, Chip

  4. Two new motions and a Notice of May 28 hearing at GZLegal website.

    One motion is to allow two new witnesses to the defense (names redacted). The other is to allow defense experts to testify via video-conference, at trial.

    The Notice of Hearing includes the Motion for Hearing re: Admissibility of state audio experts. From that I conclude that there will not be a Saturday hearing between now and May 28th.

    • Correction – the motion re: allowing tesimony via video conference is not for the trial, but is for the May 28 hearing. I presume the defense will be calling experts in order to rebut the contention that state’s audio experts are using scientifically recognized analytical means to support their conclusions.

  5. Jackpot of state motions in limine re: excluding various types and piece of evidence; and a state motion for the court to compel defense to comply with discovery obligations. I doubt there is a drunken rant Bernardo in there, but hey, hope springs eternal.

    • Just a general remark, that what the state is seeking here is not unsual for them to ask for; and that the eventual rulings by the court are bound to be seen as inflammatory to one side or the other. Trials are highly scripted events, and juries are kept in the dark more than they are informed.

        • It’s very similar to the one used by Canadians, both being based on British common law and trial court practices. The arguments that defend the system literally fill volumes in a library, a couple hundred feet of shelf space, I would guess. And saying it’s “the best” is pretty weak tea anyway, if all the others just suck worse.

          I know I’ve said this before, but don’t judge the system by the actions of the people who are controlling it. When the people controlling the system are corrupt, or twist the rules, etc., your opinion involves a mixture of the framework/system, and how it is being controlled.

          • I no longer agree that ours is the best.. two big reasons are Brady and the defense not receiving the same amount of money as the state.

            Someone here, maybe you?, posted a convincing case that the French have the best with their independent investigators.

      • It seems contradictory or at least odd that Nelson would rule for the defense to obtain most or all of the information that BLDR wants excluded.

        Maybe that was just for show.

        • I don’t think it’s contradictory. What’s discoverable is much broader than what’s admissible as evidence. Discovery is allowed of any information reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

          • But will the defense be able to use the discovery they get about martins character? Or can they only use it as rebuttal if the state brings in evidence of martins character?

      • Cboldt, do you think the state will succeed in keeping that stuff out? I asked jeralyn a long time ago if what the martin supporters were claiming was true, that the defense wouldnt bring up martins character becauset hen the pros could bring up zimmermans character, and she said it wasnt. I never asked if the defense could bring up martins character on their own or if they only could if the pros brought up martins character first. Can the defense bring it up first?

    • I can see opinions being excluded but what they did to investigate the and detailed written reports, including all of Serino’s various proposals for charges and the cause for that happening, are well document facts as is their written conclusion and public statements, in particular those of Serino.

      But as our friend Howie would say, Nelson can do whatever she wants in HER court room.

      • I wonder if those would be considered ‘opinions’ as well. Serino just offered his opinion that GZ should be charged after all. Well, under pressure and to try and get the SA to take the case off their hands.

        • All throughout the discovery is Serino writing that calls for help belonged to Zimmerman. Why wouldn’t he think that? Tracy told him it wasn’t Trayvon on Feb. 28th. W6 told him Zimmerman called to him for help and Zimmerman’s own statements that night was he was calling for help. Now the State doesn’t want the lead investigator to offer an opinion on who he thinks was calling for help.

          • The state not wanting Serino to say that Tracy admitted it wasn’t TM’s calling for help is actually minor. The state is scared to death that Serino will admit that he was pressured into filing charges against GZ. I believe, and I could be very wrong, but without Serino’s capias from the SPD, the prosecution could not have filed charges against GZ whether it was Wolfinger or Corey. Please correct me if I am wrong anyone, but wasn’t a capias from the SPD required to get the whole show rolling against GZ?

        • Serino didn’t just offer his opinion that GZ should be charged. Serino wrote up a “capias” recommending that GZ be charged with a homicide. Capias, if you look up the word means a document that requires that the person be arrested, and brought into custody. In other words he was recommending that GZ be put in jail. Did he do it just to take the case off the SPD’s hands is likely. But his capias was submitted to imprision GZ. Wolfinger said no, there isn’t enough evidence to arrest GZ and imprision him. It then got taken out of Wolfinger’s hands because he didn’t buckle to the same pressure that Serino did. Serino didn’t simply offer an opinion, he recommended that GZ be arrested and taken into custody.

          Look up the word “capias.”

          • Serino didn’t find enough evidence to support a charge, either. His conclusion depends on applying the test of “could have prevented the outcome” in order to assign culpabilty.

            Sad thing is, quite a few people think this is a workable legal theory, and assign Zimmerman getting out of his truck as sufficient basis to attach guilt.

            • So based on Serino’s “opinion” that if GZ didn’t get out of his truck, it all could have been avoided theory caused him to write a capias against GZ for manslaughter? Sarc.

              I would think that Serinos opinion, injected into his police report, has caused him as much grief, and his ultimate demotion, as his admission that he was pressured by the 3 officers that had ties to the black community. But yes. there unfortunately there are those that would agree that GZ getting out of his vehicle made him guilty of Murder 2. That’s what the Travonites do, and that is what Francis Oliver is trying to tell them to be silent about.

          • I vaguely remember readjng somewhere that he had to prepare that capias report so that the state could take the case over, but I dint remember where, or how reliable the source was

          • Pinecone: Serino didn’t simply offer an opinion, he recommended that GZ be arrested and taken into custody. True, but, his opinion is only that, if I understand the process correctly. It is the DA who can agree with recommendation of the police (Serino) or not, i.e., they are not required to follow the advice of the police regarding an arrest.

            If I’m wrong on that assessment, some legal expert please let me know…

            • I see this sort of remark, “If I’m wrong, some expert correct me,” and just offer a caution, that if you don’t get a reply, that doesn’t mean you are correct! This is a casual place, not a rigorous place, and plenty of errors and mistakes go without any attempt at a corrective remark. And when you do get a remark back, chances are it is a simplification – and there is some chance the remark that aims to correct is itself wrong.

              As between the police and the prosecutor (in FLA, this is the State Attorney), BOTH have arrest power, but only the prosecutor has the power to file a charge. If Serino thought there was probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, query why the SPD did not arrest Zimmerman? Bear in mind, the threshhold of evidence to support probable cause (and arrest by the police) is LOWER than the threshhold for ethically filing charges with a court. The prosecutor should have a belief he can prove the case.

              You are correct that the prosecutor is under no obligation to charge, upon being informed of the evidence in a case. It is not uncommon to have an arrest and detention, only to have the prosecutor decline to charge. Corey had a murder like that. Shooter left the scene, came back a couple hours later, was arrested. He and the victim knew each other, and were not on friendly terms. Arrested by the police, released by the prosecutor, Corey. The reverse, no arrest by police, but charge by prosecutor? That is damned odd. I can see it when the prosecutor has evidence unknown to the police. But the added evidence here (W8 and Sybrina) will collapse in court, and that could be seen from a mile away.

              Anyway, long story short, Serino’s advice to arrest is as bogus as his advice to charge. It’s based on an unworkable principle of law, that the person who could have avoided the outcome is culpable.

              • Did serino have to make the capias request so that the state could take over the investigation, or could the state take over without the capias? There is a sentinel article that says serino was told to make the capias request so that the state could take over, implying they couldnt take over without it

                • Corey was sent on a special mission, and could have done the entire project without SPD. The governor did not need for SPD to have sent its investigation results to the prosecutor, in order to strip the prosecutor of his assignment in this case; and Corey did not need an investigation from SPD or a report from Serino, in order to discharge her assigned charter. Picture SPD is utterly corrupt, or inept, maybe there was NO evidence. Corey’s charter was to get to the bottom of that, if it existed.

                  Newspaper articles are 99% misinformation, when it comes to describing the contents of a legal filing or any other legal fact. If you are curious about it, do your own research.

          • Pinecone: I just read your comment again and I completely misinterpreted it – you are correct. I conflated the terms arrest and prosecute. Perhaps I’m guilty of PWS (posting while Scotching).

      • It seems like an experienced lead investigators opinions that are based on the evidence and his years of experience should be admissible

        • And that’s the question Frenchpug. A lead detective in the case should have all and any credibility in how he conducted the investigation, right. But then when you have the lead detective admitting to the FBI that he was pressured into filing the capias, it puts a dark shadow on the entire investigation, including those that seemed never to be on the same page as Serino.

          It’s actually interesting that Crump et al screamed with riots, protests, and promises of retribution, that the SPD was corrupt, inept and participating in cover-ups that the lead detective was actually on their side. That is until he admitted that he was pressured by the very same. I don’t believe that Serino knows how much trouble he is in not matter what community he is walking in now.

          • I wonder if there are statistics somewhere about how often lead investigators are not called to testify in murder case that they investigated. This has to be unusual

            • Frenchpug – As a matter of fact, it happened in FLa. in the last year & a half in the Adam Kaufman Murder Trial. A case in which there was prosecutorial misconduct, there wasn’t a determination of death for over 18 months & ONLY BECAUSE Lena Kaufman’s family continued to call the ME’s office for the cause of death did the ME write “homicide” on the death certificate. The ME was unprofessional, arrogant & didn’t even do the autopsy but showed up to testify for the State. An embarrassing showing.

              It was the Lead Detective’s first case, glaring errors, all of the evidence wasn’t collected, the CSI Tech on the case had had an AFFAIR with the LEAD Detective & she LIED about the affair on the STAND! The next day the Defense called her back & she had to ADMIT ON THE STAND as to the affair, but claimed it was over & her husband knew about it. GOOD DEFENSE work unearthed the information on the affair, the State was blindsided & were made fools of by their # 1 witness, the Lead Detective. The States case imploded, it was so bad that they didn’t even bother calling the LEAD Detective.

              Adam Kaufman should have never been charged for murder imo, a shoddy & embarrassing case Prosecutors were hell bent on bringing. Kaufman was a wealthy man, his defense cost in excess of over a million dollars, in essence, the cost of freedom. One of his defense attorneys is now a Federal Judge in Fla. I read last week.

          • Minpin, I believe that Florida is one of those states that allow prosecutors to file an indictment, so a capias was not needed to charge GZ. But having a Capias delivered does accomplish 2 things, it gives the charges some legitimacy and it transfers the investigation from the SPD to the State Attorney’s office. It is still up to the State to prosecute Capias or not, but they did not need one.

        • Their opinions are good enough for them to assert their powers, and only theirs. The power of the police is to investigate and incarcerate. The power of the prosecutor is to incarcerate and charge. The power of the jury is to find guilt, to convict. The police are not allowed to assume the function of the jury. The police can present evidence to the jury, but they are out of line if they tell the jury what (they think) the jury’s conclusion should be.

          The police have to reach the conclusion that there is probable cause in order to justify using their power to detain. The prosecutor has to at least agree with the police in order to charge and start the prosecution. The jury has to find that the evidence supports the charge, with a certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.

          That changes a bit when the police themselves (or the state) are being examined for wrongful prosecution. In that case the very issue is the conclusion of the police, or the prosecutor, and what evidence they had to support bringing the weight of the state against an accused.

        • it seems like an experienced lead investigators opinions that are based on the evidence and his years of experience should be admissible

          It would take a really stupid jury to not put 1 and 1 together, to get 2. Did SPD complete its investigation? Did SPD arrest Zimmerman?

          The only reason “why not” is lack of probable cause. Plus, that assertion (lack of probable cause) was published by the town – to explain why no arrest. If Bernardo (heh … the line was out of sight, and I typed Bernardodo) wants to bring up that Serino recommended charging, then Bernardo is introducing/using the opinion of Serino, and he opens the door for the defense to rebut.

          The system isn’t designed to handle bogus charges well. The system is built around the assumption that the actors will abide by sound legal principles and basic honesty. It’ll unravel, but it’ll unravel slowly. Unfortunately, many of the guilty parties (I’m looking at you, Governor Scott) will get off scot-free.

  6. The State by its motions are in effect admitting that TM was a drug user, had been in fight, there is texts or other evidence of fights, has a prior criminal history/perhaps disguised as school discipline, knows that police will not be a prosecution witnesses.

    BDLR trying to shore up his weak case by eliminating the defense’s case.

    • It appears he wants to keep the police opinions out of evidence as well. If he doesn’t use W8, all he has left is the police investigation and what they found. How does he square that circle?

      • I’m not sure that they found anything new, but that they plan to use GZ NEN call and build around that. The NEN call will be used to establish that a) GZ followed TM b) TM kept trying to get away c) GZ made disparaging remarks, a-holes, f-king punks to show malice on the part of GZ.

        Combined with testimony of the scream to prove their case. I am missing somethings but that is the jest of what I am getting at.

        • I am still wondering which of George’s statements, if any, will be used by the state? I am assuming that previous conclusions are accurate that only one statement can be used .

          • Why could only one statement be used? Perhaps there a rule to that effect, but I’m not aware of one. I would expect there are many cases where the prosecution is based on attempting to show contradictory statements by a defendant.

            • The rule is …

              90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.–Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

              Evidence that shows contradictions isn’t cumulative, but at some point, for example introducing many minor (immaterial) contradictions, the court will shut down the presentation.

              • That seems like quite a different thing from saying only one statement by GZ can be used. It says, there’s a limit on how many statements can be used, depending on the degree to which the contradictions are deemed to insignificant or repetitive.

                • It is quite different, but I think that’s what has been used to argue that “only one GZ statement can be admitted” (without meeting an objection).

            • When I posted that comment, I guess i wrongly guessed that the regulars here had read previous posts made about this issue and were also familiar with discussions and that “conclusion” expressed at CTH. It is my recollection that George’s statements were so similar the minor variations were inconsequential. Of course, the assumption was that MOM should know how to accomplish that. I stand to be corrected if my memory is faulty.

      • Sorry, nettles, I didn’t see your reply to bori before I posted. Totally agree with both of you 🙂

        • You know what would be funny, if the consequences were not so dire, is tha it is usually the defense that tries to exclude the prior bad acts, while the prosecution wants them included.

            • While I understand the strategy of creating doubt, BDLR burden for a conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, I fail to see how doubts about GZ’s story will get him a win.

              • It’s not about BDLR winning. It’s about Team Crump getting paid IMO. If GZ is convicted, that’s great. But as long as there is something Crump can use in civil suits it’s all good. I’m assuming, of course, that Crump can reference stuff revealed in a trial in a civil case. I may be mistaken.

                • That is a good point a hung jury is tantamount to a win for the State and a bonanza for Crump. The State can refuse to re-try the case, and their asses would be covered. Crump can sue away and use the lack of a clear verdict for his own lawsuits.

                  • I’ve often wondered if Crump anticipated or even wanted this level of commitment from the state… clearly there was no payoff in pursuing GZ in the civil courts. Crump needed bigger fish to fry to make this worth his while, and the biggest fish of all wiggled its way off the hook by charging GZ.

    • I think there are a couple of possibilities, W8, of course, but it could also be Serino, or Crump. It might be all of them or some. The reference to police in the motion makes me think of Serino, though.

      • State’s Motion in Limine Regarding calling of Witnesses-

        First Bernie argues that the court should not allow the defense to make statements that the state did not call a particular witness to the stand because the particular witness would not have testified in the state’s favor.

        “Although Defense would be permitted to comment on state’s failure to call a particular witness if defense were to call witness himself, where neither party calls the witness neither party is permitted to comment on witnesses nonappearance even where the witness in question IS THE LEAD DETECTIVE IN THE CASE.”

        Without naming Serino, they are directly referring to Serino who was the lead detective in the case.

        Where in the hel1 do these people come from that write this garbage? It sounds like if the defense is arguing that the sky is blue, and the state is saying it is green, and no one asks the person in charge of the entire SPD investigation, then the defense should not be allowed to infer that the sky is blue, even though we know it is green, but if you don’t call him first then the sky will remain green, and no one will be able to lead the jury into believing the sky is blue. I’m seriously wonder if Crump is writing this rot.

        On page 2, “(6) In the alternative, the state would request the court to instruct the jury, and permit the state to argue that the defense has the same power to subpoena witnesses as does the state.”

        What it sounds like is Bernie is having fits because he doesn’t have a clue of what the defense strategy will be, and they will say or do. It seems obvious to me that the state would likely never call Serino to the stand since his admission to the FBI that he was pressured into filing charges against GZ by some of his fellow SPD officers. Through Baez, the state, and the defense, received info. that Serino has information that would be exculpatory to GZ. I believe that the defense has Serino listed as a witness.

        Is there any doubt that if Serino admitted on the witness stand that he was pressured into filing charges against GZ that it would be explosive for the jury to hear? Wouldn’t the defense be able to submit into evidence the statements made by Serino, standing next to Chief Lee, that everything GZ had said in claiming self-defense was adding up, and that was said just a few days before Serino filed the charges? Why wouldn’t the defense call Serino to the stand? The defense would surely ask Serino if in fact Tracy did tell him that it wasn’t TM screaming on the tape. Of course the other officers who heard Tracy’s admission would be called by the defense, and would repeat what they said in the defense depos. They all must be eliminated according to the state. There were other SPD officers that said in defense depo’s that in the daily meetings they pretty much agreed that there was not enough evidence to chage GZ. One even said he was shocked when he heard that Serino in fact filed charges.

        So Bernie wants at least some of the SPD officers to not be allowed to testify, but in this motion he himself claims that the defense has the same subpoena power as the state in calling witnesses.

      • Can this case become even more absurd ? (rhetorical) These motions are intended to keep George from presenting a case.

        What is the most commonly used and recognized symbol for rhetorical question? Would most people accept a percontation point as a suitable symbol?

          • Thank you. I have read that much more about symbols. Some symbols actually are for sale. Check sarcasm., for example. It cost $1.99 last time I checked.

            The real issue is that there is no point in using any of them unless they are universally used, accepted and recognized. I

            • Make your own if you want. I see quite a few of those give the UTF-8 value, so you don;t have to make one. I’ve created symbols in TrueType fonts (exclamation point in a triangle, for warning labels). Cost me a hell of alot more than $1.99 of my time, but you can do it yourself.

                • That is your point a view. A different person (not me, BTW) might see the point as being one of a few who precipitates a new symbol being added to common usage. And another person might find it amusing to “stick out” as different. And yet another might use an odd symbol for similar reason that some people use odd words – an educational service for the few people who are curious enough to look it up.

    • Oh, guess I didn’t need to put a direct link to the video. I didn’t know the tweet would embed. BTW, looks like Primeau doesn’t like his area of expertise being challenged re Frye.

      • I’m pretty sure that O’Mara’s Frye attack isn’t a broadswipe at voice spectral analysis, which is what Bernardo is claiming. Sometimes a valid technology is unreliable, depending on the sample or evidence it is called on to evaluate; which is different from saying the technology is always unreliable.

        I don’t know if you think Pimeau is being personally challenged by O’Mara, i.e., that Pimeau is a potential expert for the state. If Pimeau was a potential expert for the state, he wouldn’t have put out that video – plus, in the video, he describes what experts for the state and defense will/should do in order to be able to obtain a reliable conclusion using voice spectral analysis.

        • I have been unable to find anything online that says it is possible to match screams to a particular person. Does anyone know of any studies covering this?if there havent been any studies about screams in particular would that be enough to keep owens from testifying?

    • He takes 3 mintues to say he doesn’t know. A cry similiar to the one of that night is needed. George’s recreation is too short a cry for help then the original which was longer and more intense. A sampling of Trayvon’s voice is needed as well. Which so far, no one has heard.

    • He also claims in the About for the video: “Remember, Zimmerman ignored the police when they told him not to follow Trayvon.” I asked him on twitter what evidence he had to support that statement.

      • Interesting, so he freely admits that he is biased… a blatant lack of objectivity is a huge no-no for an ‘expert’ forensic analyst. Is he trying to disqualify himself as a witness?

      • I’m sure the nonemergency operator, i think his name was Sean, is thrilled to have received a promotion to police officer by the martin side. And not just any police officer, but one that can speak for all of the spd. He probably deserves a raise.
        Why is that too subtle of a distinction for the martin side to make? And even if the actual police told him not to, so what? They have zero proof that he did continue to follow him. When told by Sean that they didnt need hom to do that he said Ok. And he isn’t being charged with following anyway, so how is that relevant.

        • Actually that sentence is wrong in 3 ways. GZ never spoke to the police, he was never told not follow, and there is no evidence he did follow after the NEN operator said he didn’t need to.

            • Thanks Boricuafudd! We had quite a group at our house yesterday watching the game and were THRILLED with the outcome. Fingers crossed.

              As I am the Queen of off topic discussions, no one here will ever get in trouble for posting a subject that may be of interest to some others.

              We are adults. Take what you like and skip over what is of no interest. Go Leafs!!

          • I read that article a while ago. When someone was arguing about how the ‘911 Operator’ had tremendous legal authority, was highly trained, et cetera; I pointed to the referenced article in which Sean admits that he found out about the job while he was working at a pizza joint only a few years ago, and that he admitted to being pretty much self-trained on the job. Too funny – thanks for linking it!

    • “The first step in any voice identification test is to aurally listen to evidence and exemplar recordings edited back to back using critical listening skills developed over the course of the expert’s forensic career.” … Primeau

      No, the first step is to have the audio ~expert’s~ hearing checked by an impartial third party to ascertain whether he is even able to do what he claims he can do… his ‘critical listening skills’ don’t amount to a hill of beans if his hearing isn’t what it used to be. He’s not a young man and surely his hearing has deteriorated not only naturally from age but from decades of damage from working in the very field that he does.

      It’s no different than the required testing and documentation that canine units are capable of performing the sensory tasks they are claimed to be able to do.

  7. gatoraider at 9:22 AM May 13, 2013
    This is the first time that some of TM’s past has been in the mainstream media. Hinting of violence and the inclusion of gold teeth will be news to those who are not internet junkies. The screen name mention will get some of them curious about it, and about why it can’t be mentioned. When it is argued in the hearing, the full details will present themselves.

    The days of the unarmed kid with skittles smokescreen are over for good. Here comes the real Trayon, ready or not.

      • That’s what has me surprised. It is the State who has confirmed for me that Trayvon has fights in his past. They acknowledge it and they want it left out of trial. No way can Nelson be that biased. Can she?

        • Sure she can.

          I’m not really sure why things need to be excluded prior to the trial. Can’t BDLR just object and have it stricken from the record or something like that? Then the jury is instructed to ignore it? It’s like BDLR is trying to get Nelson to stack the deck in his favor before the trial starts. But IANAL and it’s my first trial.

          I wonder if MOM can file responses.

          • Motions in limine relating to excluding testimony are dirt common. If the motion is too broad, the judge is supposed to reject it, and handle objections on a question by question basis when they come up at trial.

            The defense can object to the motions, it can file its own motions to exclude certain evidence, and it can object to questions during the trial.

            One thing about the “adversary system” that lies at the bottom of our trial process is that both sides inevitably come off as looking to stack the deck in their favor. That’s the nature of the beast.

            • Well, then I hope they are considered short term motions because the cutoff date for regular motions was the 10th. The cutoff for short term is the 31st.

              • The State’s motions are dated the 10th. The submitted them right before the deadline on Friday. GZ legal nicely posted them for us today.

                I do believe Mr. O’Mara has 24 hours to respond to motions filed at the deadline. Not sure if the Judge will give more time as so many were filed at deadlines. But we all now are getting to know Judge Nelson.

                • I think Nelson could be turned on a dime, given a reversal in public sentiment as expressed by the press, or given an informal suggestion via the powers-that-be in Florida, to burn Bernardo.

              • The Motions in limine are short term. The motion to compel production isn’t, technically, but so what. The state objecting to O’Mara’s motion for a hearing on the audio experts is timely, seeing as how the state couldn’t very well be expected to respond to O’Mara’s motion for hearing at the same time it was filed.

          • “Can’t BDLR just object and have it stricken from the record or something like that?”

            Once the cat is out of the bag, or the horse is out of the barn, it’s too late to object, even though many do. Just like the cat and the horse, you can’t close the door to the jurors minds once they heard something, even if it is stricken from the record. If O’Mara or West somehow get the comment out that Serino said he was pressured to charge, in lawyer speak of course, the jury already heard that damning statement. West managed to get out the name Francine in the last hearing before he was shut down. Even though a statement/comment/accusation etc. leaps out, and it is stricken, it is not necessarily stricken because it wasn’t true. I think I can pretty accurately say that some lawyers say things that they know is not allowed, or will be stricken from the record because they know it will stick in the backs of at least some jurors minds when they are deliberating.

      • They will be argued at least in writing, and most likely during the May 28th hearing in open court. We should get some hints as to the cards being held by the defense, as it argues why those particular pieces of evidence are admissible.

  8. VERY OFF TOPIC, SORRY but they have reached a vedict in the Gosnell abortion case. Nettles please delete if you wish.

    • Guilty of 3 counts of 1st degree murder. You know this is going to be appealed, and who knows what the state appeals courts will do.

    • Guilty of three counts of first degree murder. That was three of the babies born alive, and were killed by snipping the backs of their necks. The woman that died was involuntary manslaughter. There will be more trials of the staff members who also participated in killing born alive babies.

  9. These motions are infuriating, it further establishes that the prosecution not only knew about TM’s past, including violence, criminal activities and school issues, but continued with this farce. Now it is trying to cut the legs from under the defense, and while most of the motions are customary it tells me that the prosecution is concerned by the actions of TM.

    For a SA that can’t be bothered to read a motion all the way through (videotaping of w8) this is a lot of work. It is my belief that one of these motions is really important to BDLR, and he is trying to hide it among the others, I have read them over and over, and I feel like I am missing something.

    Does anyone else feel like BDLR is trying to pull a fast one?

  10. The State with the assitance of the court has done it’s best to railroad a man who defended his own life. Strangers have tried to level the playing field and a judge took all of the donation money for bond. We’ve fought back but funds are still lacking.

    We seen clear and convincing evidence that the State knows Trayvon Martin and they know what he did that night. They are asking the court to suppress his criminal records, history of fighting, levels of drugs in his system that night, his own words on social media. They need to suppress it because a jury will know why after 4.5 minutes after getting out of his vehicle, GZ is punched in the face approx. 25 yards from his vehicle. If you can, I appeal to you to donate to the defense and send a message to the State, the court, and the politicians THIS WILL NOT STAND!

    http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/

  11. States Motion in Limine regarding Criminal History

    Bernie is claiming that the defense may try to impart to the jury that GZ was never convicted of any crime. He admits that GZ’s bar fight was settled by pre-tiral intervention.

    It appears that Bernie may be planning to try to get GZ convicted by character assassination, and trying to show him as someone that doesn’t obey or respect authority from the bar incident. At the same time, and I haven’t read the rest of the state motions yet, Bernie wants any character assassination against TM not to be allowed.

    I did read the request to not allow the toxicology report, as he claims it had nothing to do with TM’s condition that night. He seems to be talking about the local tox test that was done that showed traces of pot in TM’s body, but no one has ever seen the full tox report from the tox lab. I don’t know if the defense paid for any additional testing for designer drugs etc. TM’s cousin said in a tweet, or somewhere, that he and TM had gotten high the night before apparently when they were in Brandy’s garage,

    So it seems that Bernie has revealed another of his trial strategies, to attack GZ as a hot head with a history of violence. No doubt he will also try to use the complaints from GZ’s girl friend as well. Oh, and don’t forget the cousin.

  12. States Motion in Limine regarding self-serving hearsay statements of defendant-

    Could Bernie be trying to block any testimony from the first witness on the scene who GZ said “I was calling for help but nobody came” from testifying to that? If so, that’s self serving how?

    • It can’t be that because that would not be hearsay, since GZ was there. Hearsay would be the cop told me that GZ said he was screaming and nobody came to help him. If that is what BDLR is referring to, I don’t know how it could be considered hearsay. Even then I would think the spontaneous statement exception would apply.

      If follow BDLR’s logic, you could conclude that any statement, including those made to the police should also be excluded, as they can be self-serving as well. The whole motion is wacky, a very vague.

      • That’s what I thought as well. Whatever GZ said to the police could also be considered hearsay. Serino spent an awful lot of time with GZ that night, and it appears Bernie is trying to get Serino thrown out of any testimony.

    • BDLR didn’t specify which statements he was referring to, so I don’t see how Nelson can grant such a motion based on BDLR’s unsupported assertion that the statements don’t fall under hearsay exceptions. The particular statement, “I was calling for help but nobody came,” seems likely to fall under the “excited utterance” exception:

      90.803(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.—A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

      Otherwise admissible statements by a defendants cannot be excluded simply because they may be self-serving. See, for instance, Bryant v. State, 98 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

  13. BDLRs motions all seem directed at boosting the state’s claim that GZ “wrongfully profiled” Trevon. Baldy is trying to block anything that shows GZ’s NEN was reasonably justified and accurate such as the comment “he looks like he’s on drugs” or “he’s up to no good”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s