Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 64

On May 24 2012 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:
Trayvon Martin shooting: Witnesses change stories ahead of Zimmerman trial



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-shooting-witnesses-change-stories-ahead-zimmerman-133743219.html

On May 24 2012 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:
Trayvon Martin shooting: Witnesses change stories ahead of Zimmerman trial



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-shooting-witnesses-change-stories-ahead-zimmerman-133743219.html

On May 24 2012 02:16 JitnikoVi wrote:


All these are interesting to read, but i definitely think that all these stories about what happened are inconcise and are all rebounding all over the place. With all the evidence that has been stated its hard to COMPETELY state zimmerman as not guilty, yet at the same time, i definitely believe there is much more evidence towards his story and his series of events as opposed to the prosecutors, and considering the law is innocent until proven guilty, i do hope he will be set a free man and can put this all behind him

On May 24 2012 19:32 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:


What exactly is their story?

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A year before he shot Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman criticized Sanford, Fla., police as lazy, saying at a public forum that he saw “disgusting” behavior by officers on ride-alongs.

He also contended the department covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer.

"I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white," Zimmerman said during a 90-second statement to city commissioners at a community forum. "It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those that are in the thin blue line."

The forum took place on Jan. 8, 2011, days after a video of the beating went viral on the Internet and then-Sanford Police Chief Brian Tooley was forced to retire. Tooley's department faced criticism for dragging its feet in arresting Justin Collison, the son of a police lieutenant, in the beating.

The Miami Herald obtained a clip of a recording of the meeting and first reported details from the community forum Wednesday. The Associated Press also obtained a copy of the tape and reported details.

Zimmerman's public comments could be important because Martin’s parents and supporters contend the neighborhood watch volunteer singled Martin out because he was black. Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother and a white father. His supporters have said he is not racist.

At the community forum, Zimmerman said he witnessed "disgusting" behavior by officers when he was part of a ride-along program.

“The officer showed me his favorite hiding spots for taking naps, explained to me that he doesn’t carry a long gun in his vehicle because, in his words, ‘anything that requires a long gun requires a lot of paperwork, and you’re going to find me as far away from it.’

“He took two lunch breaks and attended a going-away party for one of his fellow officers.”

Zimmerman also said Tooley should be denied a pension.

“I would like to know what actions the commission is taking to repeal Mr. Tooley’s pension. I am not asking you to repeal his pension. I believe he has already forfeited his pension by his illegal cover-up, corruption and what happened in his department.”

Mark O’Mara, Zimmerman’s lawyer in the Martin shooting, said his client was concerned about fairness.

“I think he was upset with the cops, because they treated the homeless guy poorly and treated Collison very well,” O’Mara told the Miami Herald on Wednesday. “At the [community] meeting, he was like, ‘Hey, what are you doing?’ ”

Sanford Interim Police Chief Richard Myers said in a statement Wednesday it would be “inappropriate” to draw any conclusions from Zimmerman’s January 2011 comments at the forum.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for shooting Martin on Feb. 26 in Sanford. The 17-year-old Martin was walking back to a townhome where he was staying when he got into a confrontation with Zimmerman, who shot him in the chest at close range.

Zimmerman, who claims the shooting was self-defense, was initially not arrested. But after protests around the country and an investigation by a state prosecutor, he was charged.

Tooley's successor, Bill Lee, temporarily resigned his post following a no-confidence vote by city commissioners.

Lee offered to resign permanently, but commissioners turned down his request. He is on paid leave.

Prosecutors handling the case against Zimmerman on Wednesday asked a judge to keep some evidence from the public, including the results of an unspecified test police conducted on Zimmerman the day after the shooting and the identities and phone numbers of 22 witnesses.

Four witnesses in the Trayvon Martin case have either modified, or completely changed their stories since police first began their investigation.

Three changed their stories in ways that may damage George Zimmerman, the man who fatally shot 17-year-old Martin, according to the Orlando Sentinel. A fourth abandoned her initial story, that she saw one person chasing another. Now, she says, she saw a single figure running.

More from GlobalPost: Poll: Trayvon Martin case opinions divided along racial lines

The Sentinel noted the key ways each witness changed their story:

Witness 2: At first, she told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind." She also said she say a fist fight but couldn't say who was hitting who.

When she was interviewed again, she no longer recalled seeing a second runner. She said, "I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. … I just know I saw a person out there."

Witness 12: During her first interview she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon. "I don't know which one. … All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, she changed her story to say without a doubt, it was Zimmerman on top.

Witness 6: This man reportedly lives feet from where Martin and Zimmerman had their fight. In his initial interview he said he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style."

In his second interview, witness six said, "I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk."

Witness 13: This witness may be the most key witness in the case. He is the one witness to speak with and see Zimmerman immediately following the shooting. In his initial interview he said after he heard gunfire, he went outside and spotted Zimmerman standing there with"blood on the back of his head." Zimmerman reportedly told him that Trayvon "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him."

In later interviews, this witness recounted that Zimmerman spoke about the shooting as if it were no big deal.The witness said Zimmerman's tone was "not like 'I can't believe I just shot someone!' — it was more like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody …,' like it was nothing."

In another recent development in the case, The Miami Herald reported that in the past, Zimmerman had complained of corruption in the Sanford Police department.

"I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white," Zimmerman said during a 90-second statement to city commissioners at a community forum in 2011. "It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those who are in the thin blue line."

Four key witnesses to the deadly encounter between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman gave statements to the police shortly after the occurrence that appeared to support Zimmerman's claim that he fatally shot Martin in self-defense. However, when these witnesses were re-interviewed by agents of the special state prosecutor weeks later, they changed their stories in ways that weakened Zimmerman's self-defense claim. Although it is not unusual for witnesses when re-interviewed to remember new details, reconcile inconsistencies, or even contradict statements originally made, the fact that all of these witnesses changed their original accounts -- given to the police when their memory of the event was fresh and they were not being interviewed by prosecutors trying to build a homicide case against Zimmerman -- raises the troubling implication of improper witness-coaching. Here are the original accounts and altered versions of these witnesses:

Witness 1
Original story: Witness saw two persons scuffle but didn't know "which one" was on top of the other during the scuffle.

New story: Witness says she is sure it was Zimmerman on top.

Witness 2
Original story: Witness spotted Zimmerman with "blood on the back of his head." Zimmerman told this witness that Martin "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him."

New story: Witness describes Zimmerman's demeanor as nonchalant, "More like, 'just tell my wife I shot somebody' like it was nothing."

Witness 3
Original story: "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind." After stepping away from her window, she looked again and "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who." In a second interview by police, she stated that during the chase, the two figures were 10 feet apart.

New story: She did not see two people running, just one person, whom she heard more than saw. "I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. I just know I saw a person out there."

Witness 4
Original story: Witness states that on the night of the shooting that Martin was on top, "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style." Witness also recalled that Zimmerman was calling for help.

New story: Witness tells prosecution he isn't sure who was calling for help.

Do these changes suggest improper coaching? To be sure, a person's memory is not like a video camera. It is not unusual for witnesses when re-questioned about an event to remember new details, recall certain facts differently, and even forget critical facts. Interviewing is a complex process that requires skill, patience, and objectivity. The fact that key witnesses in the Trayvon Martin case altered their original accounts by itself is not a reason to suspect improper conduct of the interviewers. However, the fact that all of these witnesses changed their stories in ways that appear to strengthen the prosecution's case against George Zimmerman is very troubling.

Witness coaching is one of the "dark" -- some call it "dirty" -- secrets in the U.S. adversary system. Lawyers, police, investigators coach witnesses. They do it by giving cues and suggestions to change recollections, fill in gaps in memory, resolve ambiguities, eliminate contradictions, sharpen language, create emphasis, and alter demeanor. Private lawyers coach witnesses because they are partisans who represent clients and want to win. But prosecutors don't have clients. Prosecutors are supposed to seek justice, not scalps. So coaching is a practice that a prosecutor more than any other lawyer has a duty to avoid. But many reported cases, even in the Supreme Court, describe the conduct of some unscrupulous prosecutors in coaching witnesses to give false, misleading, or exaggerated testimony to enhance their chances of getting a conviction, sometimes of innocent people.

That several witnesses in the Trayvon Martin case changed their stories is troubling for several reasons. First, whereas most prosecutors seek to build strong cases, there is a concern that special state prosecutor Angela Corey may not be a disinterested seeker of justice. Indeed, she has been criticized as an overzealous champion of victims, who prayed with the Martin family over their loss. Many prosecutors have that image. But having an aggressive victim-oriented persona suggests that Corey and her staff may have re-interviewed these witnesses not with the neutral purpose to seek impartial justice but with the self-serving purpose to bring murder charges against Zimmerman. Moreover, the Probable Cause Affidavit filed by Corey which charged Zimmerman with second degree murder contains several large gaps in proof that the prosecution would need to fill to get a conviction. The affidavit states several times that Zimmerman "followed" Martin, "confronted" Martin, and "shot" Martin. But it says nothing about what happened between "followed," "confronted," and "shot." The original statements of the four witnesses would have filled these gaps with circumstantial evidence arguably inconsistent with second degree murder -- witness 1 said she didn't know who was on top during the fight; witness 4 said that Zimmerman was calling for help; witness 3 said she saw two persons running and then saw a fist fight. After being re-interviewed by prosecutors, witness 1 said Zimmerman was on top; witness 4 said he didn't know who was calling for help; witness 3 suggested that she didn't see a fight, and that she barely saw but mostly heard only one person, not two.

Further, given a prosecutor's considerable power and prestige, witnesses typically look up to the prosecutor as a law enforcement expert who can be trusted to use facts responsibly. In such a setting, a prosecutor has a unique ability to persuade, suggest, and even manipulate a witness into altering a story. The witnesses almost certainly knew that the prosecutor was specially appointed to investigate the Trayvon Martin killing, that the case had attracted national attention, that there was the suggestion of a cover-up by the Sandford police to protect Zimmerman, and that they were being re-interviewed to assist the prosecution in bringing criminal charges against Zimmerman. Coaching does not necessarily happen overtly. It often happens covertly, subtly, and sometimes even unwittingly. Although we do not know the extent to which these witnesses may have been vulnerable to a prosecutor's suggestions, the new fact added by witness 2 -- describing Zimmerman's demeanor moments after the shooting as nonchalant -- is a questionable opinion as a matter of evidence law, highly prejudicial to Zimmerman, and almost certainly suggested in a leading manner by the interviewer. But absent any record of how a prosecutor or investigator may have interacted with the witness prior to and during the interviewing session, it is unlikely that improper coaching could be demonstrated. And even if the actual interview is recorded, as some of these interviews apparently were, there is no record of what transpired before the interview session, and what suggestions the interviewer may have made.

The changes by these witnesses are a troubling development in this most controversial case. Given the complex nature of memory, the ambiguity and uncertainty of "facts," and the distorting effects of being questioned and re-questioned about an event, it is possible that the recollection of these witnesses -- the original and altered versions -- may be a combination of an accurately retrieved, inaccurately reconstructed, and an outright imagined memory. The fact that these witnesses have given inconsistent accounts may impair their credibility in the eyes of a jury. But if their newer versions are accepted by a jury, then the prosecutor's chances of getting a conviction have been improved. We're therefore left with the nagging suspicion that these witnesses may have been consciously manipulated by the prosecution to produce just that result.

Were Trayvon Martin Witnesses Coached to Change Their Stories?

On June 01 2012 03:43 Felnarion wrote:
On this case specifically, my eyes have been opened to the ultimate uselessness of much witness testimony.

On June 01 2012 04:49 dAPhREAk wrote:

issues with eyewitness testimony has been thoroughly researched and documented. its amazing how much impact the way you ask a question has on the actual testimony. i coach witnesses before depositions and i use leading questions to get adverse witnesses to say what i want. its amazing the difference in testimony when you ask a leading question:

What color was the light when the defendant went through the intersection? (they will think about it and give their best recollection)

The light was red when the defendant went through the intersection, correct? (they will usually answer in the affirmative especially after you have tired them out for 4-6 hours beforehand and at that point are answering yes to everything.)

another tactic is to ask a series of non-controversial questions with affirmative answers and then hit them with the zinger:

Defendant was driving a red Toyota, correct?
Plaintiff was driving a blue Nissan, correct?
Plaintiff entered the intersection first, correct?
Defendant's car hit the Plaintiff's car from the passenger side, correct?
The light was red when the defendant entered the intersection, correct?

such manipulation is why (1) there are rules disallowing so-called leading questions (except for adverse witnesses where there are control issues), and (2) adverse lawyers are so important during questioning. for the latter, during a series of affirmative questions, i will object just to destroy the flow and when it gets to the zinger i will have a long line of objections to make sure the witness knows that he is being targeted at that point (basically to wake him or her up).

also, all of these changed statements by the witnesses is a godsend for the defendant. what better way to prove reasonable doubt than have a bunch of witnesses changing their testimony, and having defense counsel argue that the prosecutor is not seeking justice but rather a conviction by changing testimony.

On June 02 2012 05:07 Felnarion wrote:


Not necessarily related to the case, but since you seem to know, in the case of a witness that's just being relentlessly drilled with questions over and over..Can they request a break, or even to continue their part another day? Is that something that could be done?

Is any consideration given to protecting witnesses from this kind of wearing down? And, in your experience, how many of them would you say take the responsibility seriously enough to take them seriously?

On May 25 2012 03:44 dAPhREAk wrote:
that article brings up two questions in my mind:

1. if he is criticizing cops for beating on a black homeless man, is he really racist?
2. if he thinks the cops are lazy, incompetent then was he truly trying to take the law into his own hands the night of the trayvon shooting because he felt the cops weren't doing their job?

On May 24 2012 07:55 crms wrote:
This is a perfect example of why eye-witness testimony is bullocks. I remember in a CJ course I took in college they showed us these experiements where people would be 'robbed' in front of tons of people and everyones story was different. Also how the stories would change based on how/what the investigator asked, for instance 'did he have a mustache' would increase the amount of people saying 'yes' when he really didn't. It was super interesting.

On June 01 2012 04:30 Zaqwe wrote:
It is good for Zimmerman that the most the corrupt prosecutor could get out of "witness 4" was for him to say he couldn't be sure who was screaming for help.

His testimony is still very clear. He saw someone savagely beating someone on the ground, then heard a gunshot, then the person who was on top beating the other was on the ground dead while the person being beaten was standing up.

These details from "witness 4" contradict the lies of "witness 1" and clearly establish self defense.

On June 02 2012 04:47 dAPhREAk wrote:
tsk tsk tsk for not disclosing the funds. i didn't see it in the article, but i assume he can ask for another bond hearing and get right back out of jail. likely have a larger bond set though. not sure why the court is telling him to surrender and go back to prison rather than just setting the bond higher. already determined he is not a flight risk so a new bond is essentially presumed.