May 15 2012

Trayvon’s Girlfriend Key To Martin Case

Published by at 9:50 am under All General Discussions,Trayvon Martin Case

This should be the last post on the Trayvon Martin case for a while – unless some details pop out this week from the discovery. As I was doing my last round of news searches, something came out last night from the Zimmerman camp that caught my eye, and confirmed my suspicions (that it would be the testimony of Martin’s girlfriend that seals Zimmerman’s conviction). The source of the enlightening comment? Zimmerman’s father (apparently a judge):

He [Zimmerman’s father] believes medical records and photos – released to the defense on Monday – will prove his son was injured by Trayvon [1] when the two met in a gated community’s dark pathway. He said voice tests will show George Zimmerman didn’t lie and an eyewitness will back up his account. The girl who claims to have been on the phone talking to the teenager when the incident occurred will be proved a liar [2], Zimmerman insists.

Oh good Lord – this is how they plan to win a trial? First off, no one disputes the physical altercation or that George Zimmerman got some scrapes and bruises. The issue is who instigated the confrontation, who pushed this to a head. And in this situation we have ear-witness testimony that the instigator was Zimmerman, contrary to his statements to police. Here is what little we know about the girlfriend’s testimony:

In a dramatic press conference on Tuesday, the Martin family’s lawyer Benjamin Crump detailed how the unnamed girl – a minor who was so traumatised by Martin’s death she was taken to hospital at his wake – was talking to him on his cell phone in the minutes leading up to his death, and heard the altercation with his killer.

Crump said that during the final phone call with his girlfriend, who was back home in Miami, Martin told her that a stranger was following him, according to an affidavit she recorded. Martin had then tried unsuccessfully to get away from the stranger.

“He says: ‘Oh, he’s right behind me. He’s right behind me again,'” Crump said the girl told him. “She says: ‘Run.’ He says: ‘I’m not going to run, I’m just going to walk fast.’

She then heard Martin saying “Why are you following me” and another voice saying “What are you doing here? She told Crump they both repeated themselves, and then she thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin “because his voice changes, like something interrupted his speech.” She heard an altercation and then the phone call was cut off, Crump said.

This does blow Zimmerman’s statement made to police at the time out of the water. I would suspect Zimmerman had no idea Martin was on the phone and someone was listening in. So he makes up a story about being ambushed from behind to augment his self defense claim. Little did he know a 3rd person was there that night – virtually.

This testimony is in complete contradiction to Zimmerman’s, and it is powerful (and of equal weight to anything Zimmerman claims). It indicates Martin tries numerous times to get away from Zimmerman who stalks the kid (armed of course). It indicates Zimmerman was not ambushed, but came up to Martin and challenged him. And it also implies Zimmerman started the physical altercation.

If Zimmerman’s father believes the defense will prove her a liar (which is way too harsh) and that will save his son – he is being foolish. She is going to be an unimpeachable witness. She is going to provide details Zimmerman thought he could cover up when he concocted his story.

And it is clear from the elder Zimmerman’s harsh statement it is the girlfriend’s testimony that is most dangerous to his son’s defense.

Zimmerman is now caught in a lie, and somehow must prove to judge or jury the girlfriend made up her testimony. Won’t happen. There is no motive. The defense has relied on this all about Zimmerman being attacked. Now we have confirmation it was Martin who was attacked.

And under stand your ground he had every right to beat Zimmerman’s head against the ground in self defense.

93 responses so far

93 Responses to “Trayvon’s Girlfriend Key To Martin Case”

  1. Redteam says:

    “As I said before, Police Officers don’t charge suspects directly for any offense outside of moving violations.”

    so you think repeating the same thing is more convincing the second time?

    So you clearly do not understand how police departments around the country are organized? Many of them have prosecutors assigned to the police dept. In those cases the police depts are the ones that bring charges. I thought everyone knew this, apparently some people are still in the stone age.

    Do you need a lesson on how the internet works?

    you can actually look up some things on it and get an education, something you apparently overlooked. It benefits some people, but I doubt it will help you very much.

    Let’s start with 2+2 ? wanta guess what that adds up to?
    just remain blissful…

  2. browngreengold says:

    Ummm… Dood…

    You’re embarrassing yourself.

    I gave you links to support my position. Did you even bother to read them?

    You’ve done nothing but flap your gums. Oh, and provide a quote about something that happened in Australia.

    Show me a link that proves that criminal suspects are charged without the involvement of a Prosecutor/District Attorney, etc. Show me.

    Even you admit, in your most recent post, that Prosecutors are involved.


  3. browngreengold says:

    And RT, when you have a few minutes where you’re not distracted by trying to find your azz, there are more links in the original thread.

    You see, I know all about this Interwebz thing.

    I know how to research. I know how to find source materials.

    And I know how to let you demonstrate to everyone here how ignorant you are.

  4. Redteam says:

    BGG, this is my last response to you. When small minds can find nothing better to do than make stuff up and call other people ignorant because they can’t make sense of their mindless ravings then it’s time to quit attempting to help them out of their abyss.
    Your entire efforts are to throw anything out, no matter how ridiculous, quote it as a ‘fact’ because you read it in some article that ABC news published then say someone is ignorant because they don’t buy your baloney.
    Name calling is the product of a small mind with nothing to say. So don’t bother attempting to indoctrinate me with your total BS.
    And you don’t need to keep calling me or anyone else names because you have no ability to do anything including think for yourself. Your failing is your on, you need no further help in remaining clueless.
    If you have any pride left, (which you probably don’t so you will just have to get in one more namecalling episode) you won’t respond to this because we all know it would just be more name calling.
    Adios and good day.

  5. Layman says:

    Perhaps it is a matter of deciding on a definition.

    In my neck of the woods when someone is arrrested the arresting officer (police) swears out the complaint – often called filing a charge.

    The actual filing of the criminal complaint with specific charges and specifications is performed by the prosecutor and guess what? It is often called by the lay public “filing a charge.”

  6. Redteam says:

    Layman, thanks, I thought that what you said was a given. As you describe iit is what I think is happening. When a person is taken in by the police, they are charged with a crime. Technically, it is a prosecutor from the DA’s office that does it, but in large departments, the prosecutors are ‘assigned’ to the police dept and thus it is the police dept that ‘files’ charges. (ever watch Blue Bloods?) It’s all semantics. Most newspaper stories say something like, ” the police arrested him and charged him with xxx.”

    In this case, the police didn’t want to charge him, the DA didn’t want to charge him, a special prosecutor was appointed to present the case to the grand jury, but she was convinced they wouldn’t charge him, so enough pressure was brought to bear for the special prosecutor to do it herself. Once so much evidence has been revealed that clearly indicate that they will never convict him, the special agitators, Jackson and Sharpton, et. al.; have all decided they have better things to do than have their name associated with a lost cause and have bugged out.

  7. Louctiel says:

    “In my neck of the woods when someone is arrrested the arresting officer (police) swears out the complaint – often called filing a charge.”

    Sort of. We are down in the weeds with semantics now.

    When a person has been denied their liberty and freedom of movement (other than for the safety of an officer) they have been “arrested.” Their freedom has been stopped or “arrested.”

    That being said, in Florida, a person may be arrested (freedom of movement denied) and not be charged. The police have 24 hours to file a charge in order to continue holding the person.

    In other words, you may be arrested and not have a charge filed against you. Other than that small semantic clarification, you are dead on the money.

    The reason this is somewhat important is for those who say Zimmerman was not arrested, but the video of him walking into the police station clearly shows him handcuffed and his freedom restrained. When the police put handcuffs on him for a reason other than the nebulous “officer safety,” he was under arrest.

  8. Redteam says:

    Louctiel, correct. He was arrested and released. When he was charged by the special prosecutor he was arrested again, arraigned and released on bail.
    Just watched video on O’Reilly of Crump of ‘Crumped up charges’ fame.
    He reluctantly admitted that he didn’t really like the report indicating Martin had used his fists in the altercation. He tried to insinuate that Zimmerman was a nut with a gun but it didn’t come out well for him.

  9. browngreengold says:

    It’s absolutely amazing to watch the people here talk in circles while completely ignoring basic facts.

    I’ve shown, through multiple sources, that police departments do NOT charge suspects.

    What’s particularly amazing is that when source material is presented, I am accused of making things up.

    Strangely, those who claim I am wrong cannot produce a single piece of source material to support their position.

    How does that work exactly?

    RT, I am glad that you’ve posted your last response to me. That means I won’t have to read any more of your scribblings on this topic.

    That won’t, however, keep me from pointing and laughing at you.


  10. Marsh says:

    and speaking of birthers…anyone see Drudge’s red headline?

  11. Redteam says:

    Yes! Obama admitted to being a birther. He believes he was born in Kenya. (or at least he believed that in 1991)

  12. Marsh says:

    So, the source of these racist rumors that he was born in Kenya originated w/ himself??? :0

  13. Marsh says:

    “Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.”

    “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something.”

    Not profiling, rather astute observation.

  14. From Marsh’s link:

    The autopsy also shows that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance of between 1 inch and 18 inches away, bolstering Zimmerman’s claim that he shot Martin during a struggle that landed Zimmerman on his back, Martin straddling him and banging Zimmerman’s head on the ground.

    Martin’s autopsy report also revealed that there was a quarter-inch by half-inch abrasion on the left fourth finger of Martin, another indication of a possible struggle. The teen, who lived in Miami, was in Sanford while serving a suspension for a bag of marijuana being discovered in his possession.

    THC use makes the user placid.

    THC _craving_ after prolonged use does the following:

    Abstinence following daily marijuana use can produce a withdrawal syndrome characterized by negative mood (eg irritability, anxiety, misery), muscle pain, chills, and decreased food intake.

    Two placebo-controlled, within-subject studies investigated the effects of a cannabinoid agonist, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC: Study 1), and a mood stabilizer, divalproex (Study 2), on symptoms of marijuana withdrawal. Participants (n=7/study), who were not seeking treatment for their marijuana use, reported smoking 6–10 marijuana cigarettes/day, 6–7 days/week.

    Study 1 was a 15-day in-patient, 5-day outpatient, 15-day in-patient design. During the in-patient phases, participants took oral THC capsules (0, 10 mg) five times/day, 1 h prior to smoking marijuana (0.00, 3.04% THC).

    Active and placebo marijuana were smoked on in-patient days 1–8, while only placebo marijuana was smoked on days 9–14, that is, marijuana abstinence.

    Placebo THC was administered each day, except during one of the abstinence phases (days 9–14), when active THC was given. Mood, psychomotor task performance, food intake, and sleep were measured.

    Oral THC administered during marijuana abstinence decreased ratings of ‘anxious’, ‘miserable’, ‘trouble sleeping’, ‘chills’, and marijuana craving, and reversed large decreases in food intake as compared to placebo, while producing no intoxication.

    Study 2 was a 58-day, outpatient/in-patient design. Participants were maintained on each divalproex dose (0, 1500 mg/day) for 29 days each. Each maintenance condition began with a 14-day outpatient phase for medication induction or clearance and continued with a 15-day in-patient phase.

    Divalproex decreased marijuana craving during abstinence, yet increased ratings of ‘anxious’, ‘irritable’, ‘bad effect’, and ‘tired.’ Divalproex worsened performance on psychomotor tasks, and increased food intake regardless of marijuana condition.

    Thus, oral THC decreased marijuana craving and withdrawal symptoms at a dose that was subjectively indistinguishable from placebo.

    Divalproex worsened mood and cognitive performance during marijuana abstinence. These data suggest that oral THC, but not divalproex, may be useful in the treatment of marijuana dependence.

  15. Layman says:

    From the ABC News report:

    A second witness described a person on the ground with another straddling him and throwing punches. The man on the bottom was yelling for help, the witness told police.

    The documents state that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.

    The lead investigator on the case, Officer Christopher Serino, wrote that Zimmerman could be heard “yelling for help as he was being battered by Trayvon Martin. I guess he should have just let Martin kill him and then everything would be OK.

    AJ: Still on the Murder 2 is justified wagon? Manslaughter… maybe. Wreckless endangerment… probably. Murder 2… no way!

  16. Layman says:

    ABC News quote ends after “… battered by Trayvon Martin.”

    “I guess he should have just let Martin kill him and then everything would be OK” is my rhetorical remark.

  17. crosspatch says:

    Yeah, Zimmerman’s account seems to check out with everything taken at the scene. I hate to think what would have happened if Martin had found that gun or if he had knocked Zimmerman unconscious.

    I’m not passing judgment on guilt, that is for a jury, but so far I have seen nothing that shows any reason for Zimmerman to have been indicted.

  18. Marsh says:

    ABC: Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman’s Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting

  19. Marsh says:

    “Wreckless endangerment… probably.”

    Nope. Not even this. This will never get to court. The judge will throw it out at the SYG hearing.

  20. Layman says:

    I still think Zimmerman bears some responsibility. His actions led to the altercation. If he had stayed in his truck until the police arrived we’d be living in a different reality. That said, he was under no affirmative responsibility to stay in the truck and he certaintly wasn’t obliged to let TM kill him. Hence, wreckless endangerment or perhaps manslaughter.

    Anyone know if Florida law has multiple levels of manslaughter? And I haven’t seen discussion of how the charges were filed. Can the jury find guilty to a lesser charge, is it all or nothing, or are we not to that point yet?