Trayvon Martin And The Right To Be Left Alone...

[dilloduck]

I simply cited her statement, please show me where "the police and prosecution do not" believe her.

That's Gawdag, blowing smoke again.

The Special Prosecutor apparently believes her, as she is referred to in the charging affidavit.

And the police never spoke to her, never cared to - even though they had TM's phone which would have produced evidence of the last person he talked to -- so I'm not sure why he said they didn't believe her. They just didn't care.

That's what I figured. I noticed that some people conveniently left out the phone call account when they were arguing in favor of zimmerman.

oh yes--the account given by Martin's girlfriend is crucial and unbiased stuff.

 

[KissMy]

You believe her??
The police and prosecution do not.

I simply cited her statement, please show me where "the police and prosecution do not" believe her.

That's Gawdag, blowing smoke again.

The Special Prosecutor apparently believes her, as she is referred to in the charging affidavit.

And the police never spoke to her, never cared to - even though they had TM's phone which would have produced evidence of the last person he talked to -- so I'm not sure why he said they didn't believe her. They just didn't care.

Ever hear of hearsay? It is not admissible. Especially when it took almost 5 weeks to concoct the story.

 

[Pheonixops]

That's Gawdag, blowing smoke again.

The Special Prosecutor apparently believes her, as she is referred to in the charging affidavit.

And the police never spoke to her, never cared to - even though they had TM's phone which would have produced evidence of the last person he talked to -- so I'm not sure why he said they didn't believe her. They just didn't care.

That's what I figured. I noticed that some people conveniently left out the phone call account when they were arguing in favor of zimmerman.

oh yes--the account given by Martin's girlfriend is crucial and unbiased stuff.

Is it any more biased than zimmerman's account? What makes it any less credible than any other witness account?

 

[Ariux]

And the police never spoke to her, never cared to - even though they had TM's phone which would have produced evidence of the last person he talked to -- so I'm not sure why he said they didn't believe her. They just didn't care.

You're complaining that the cops didn't care? The girl herself apparently didn't care. She didn't tell anyone for a couple of weeks, and when she did tell, it was only because she was asked. (Probably she didn't tell because Trayvon told her that he was going to "kill that mutha fucking cracker" so she thought it best if she kept silent, but this kind of thing would never be revealed to us or the police.)

The girl's statements (as hearsay from a biased witness) are worthless to the Prosecution, and actually help Zimmerman (e.g. they suggest that Trayvon approached Zimmerman, not the other way around).

If the cops did fail to question her in a timely fashion, and not because they had already enough evidence, maybe the cops should fire their African and Hispanic investigators and hire competent whites? And, it'll probably come out that the police did try to contact her right away, but she refused to talk to them.

 

[Zoom]

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

But the article is assuming he was just "walking"..

Now...I dont know what happened....and I have no presumptions...

But...

Maybe he was just walking
Maybe he was walking from car to car seeing if one was unlocked? That is very suspicious.
Maybe he was not actually walking on the sidewalk but closer to the front doors seeing which one may be ajar?
Maybe he was just walking
Maybe he would slow down near a front door and "look around" as if trying to see if someone sees him
Maybe he was just walking.

That article AGAIN did the wrong thing.

It assumes he did not ACT suspicious.

FYI...people usually dont LOOK suspicious...but many ACT suspicious.

There should be no more artilces on this. Let the facts come out first.

That is a lot of maybe. Here is a fact for you...the cops told him to not pursue that kid. He did and shot him.

Maybe he is just a freaking racist who totally messed up and shot the wrong kid. How about that maybe.

(By the way, a racist would go along with them looking suspicious just due to him being black).

 

[Zoom]

And the police never spoke to her, never cared to - even though they had TM's phone which would have produced evidence of the last person he talked to -- so I'm not sure why he said they didn't believe her. They just didn't care.

You're complaining that the cops didn't care? The girl herself apparently didn't care. She didn't tell anyone for a couple of weeks, and when she did tell, it was only because she was asked. (Probably she didn't tell because Trayvon told her that he was going to "kill that mutha fucking cracker" so she thought it best if she kept silent, but this kind of thing would never be revealed to us or the police.)

The girl's statements (as hearsay from a biased witness) are worthless to the Prosecution, and actually help Zimmerman (e.g. they suggest that Trayvon approached Zimmerman, not the other way around).

If the cops did fail to question her in a timely fashion, and not because they had already enough evidence, maybe the cops should fire their African and Hispanic investigators and hire competent whites? And, it'll probably come out that the police did try to contact her right away, but she refused to talk to them.

They have Zimmerman on tape after he ran to catch the kid. Martin did not apporach him, he was approached by an armed stalker. How do you support Zimmerman getting out of that truck when the cops told him to not pursue that kid?

He chased, caught up to, fought and then shot an unarmed kid. Period. That is a fact.

 

[Zoom]

That's Gawdag, blowing smoke again.

The Special Prosecutor apparently believes her, as she is referred to in the charging affidavit.

And the police never spoke to her, never cared to - even though they had TM's phone which would have produced evidence of the last person he talked to -- so I'm not sure why he said they didn't believe her. They just didn't care.

That's what I figured. I noticed that some people conveniently left out the phone call account when they were arguing in favor of zimmerman.

oh yes--the account given by Martin's girlfriend is crucial and unbiased stuff.

And Zimmerman's account is ont biased? Please, stay on point and answer this one.

 

[dilloduck]

That's what I figured. I noticed that some people conveniently left out the phone call account when they were arguing in favor of zimmerman.

oh yes--the account given by Martin's girlfriend is crucial and unbiased stuff.

And Zimmerman's account is ont biased? Please, stay on point and answer this one.

Of course his account is biased. The cops ain't buying it and have arrested him.

 

[KissMy]

oh yes--the account given by Martin's girlfriend is crucial and unbiased stuff.

And Zimmerman's account is ont biased? Please, stay on point and answer this one.

Of course his account is biased. The cops ain't buying it and have arrested him.

A defendants words are hearsay & are not used to exonerate them. However a defendants words can be used against them in court. Zimmerman ran his mouth to much & that is why he is in trouble.

Martin's girlfriend's statement is also hearsay & won't be allowed in court.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I simply cited her statement, please show me where "the police and prosecution do not" believe her.

That's Gawdag, blowing smoke again.

The Special Prosecutor apparently believes her, as she is referred to in the charging affidavit.

And the police never spoke to her, never cared to - even though they had TM's phone which would have produced evidence of the last person he talked to -- so I'm not sure why he said they didn't believe her. They just didn't care.

Ever hear of hearsay? It is not admissible. Especially when it took almost 5 weeks to concoct the story.

Testifying to the existance of the phone call is not hear say.

Testifying to the contents of a direct conversation is not hear say.

Testifying to what she may have heard an unknown person directly say is not hear say.

Testifying as truth something that one person told another and the second person told you, that is hear say.



Are you saying that blind people can't testify to the contents of conversations they have?


>>>>

 

[dilloduck]

That's Gawdag, blowing smoke again.

The Special Prosecutor apparently believes her, as she is referred to in the charging affidavit.

And the police never spoke to her, never cared to - even though they had TM's phone which would have produced evidence of the last person he talked to -- so I'm not sure why he said they didn't believe her. They just didn't care.

Ever hear of hearsay? It is not admissible. Especially when it took almost 5 weeks to concoct the story.

Testifying to the existance of the phone call is not hear say.

Testifying to the contents of a direct conversation is not hear say.

Testifying to what she may have heard an unknown person directly say is not hear say.

Testifying as truth something that one person told another and the second person told you, that is hear say.



Are you saying that blind people can't testify to the contents of conversations they have?


>>>>

Martin tells girlfriend what is happening. Girlfriend tells authoritities what Martin told her was happening. Hearsay.

 

[Pheonixops]

Ever hear of hearsay? It is not admissible. Especially when it took almost 5 weeks to concoct the story.

Testifying to the existance of the phone call is not hear say.

Testifying to the contents of a direct conversation is not hear say.

Testifying to what she may have heard an unknown person directly say is not hear say.

Testifying as truth something that one person told another and the second person told you, that is hear say.



Are you saying that blind people can't testify to the contents of conversations they have?


>>>>

Martin tells girlfriend what is happening. Girlfriend tells authoritities what Martin told her was happening. Hearsay.

Wrong answer! The girlfriend is testifying regarding her DIRECT CONVERSATION with Martin. That's NOT hearsay! Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Ariux]

Wrong answer! The girlfriend is testifying regarding her DIRECT CONVERSATION with Martin. That's NOT hearsay! Thanks for the laugh!

Sorry, animal lover, anything the girlfriend says that Trayvon said is hearsay. And, it won't help her credibility that she was the girlfriend of a thug or that she refused to talk to police for several weeks, until finally through a lawyer. I'm sure none of this matters to people with shit for brains.

Yet, in spite of her lack of credibility as a witness against Zimmerman, as a witness for Zimmerman, she helps his case a lot, such as be supporting Zimmerman's contention that Trayvon initiated the encounter and that Trayvon refused to run.

 

[The Gadfly]

Ever hear of hearsay? It is not admissible. Especially when it took almost 5 weeks to concoct the story.

Testifying to the existance of the phone call is not hear say.

Testifying to the contents of a direct conversation is not hear say.

Testifying to what she may have heard an unknown person directly say is not hear say.

Testifying as truth something that one person told another and the second person told you, that is hear say.



Are you saying that blind people can't testify to the contents of conversations they have?


>>>>

Martin tells girlfriend what is happening. Girlfriend tells authoritities what Martin told her was happening. Hearsay.

No, it isn't hearsay. Her testimony is most likely admissible. We'll see how much there is of probative value in her testimony, and how credible she appears on the stand; those are questions for a jury to decide.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ever hear of hearsay? It is not admissible. Especially when it took almost 5 weeks to concoct the story.

Testifying to the existance of the phone call is not hear say.

Testifying to the contents of a direct conversation is not hear say.

Testifying to what she may have heard an unknown person directly say is not hear say.

Testifying as truth something that one person told another and the second person told you, that is hear say.



Are you saying that blind people can't testify to the contents of conversations they have?


>>>>

Martin tells girlfriend what is happening. Girlfriend tells authoritities what Martin told her was happening. Hearsay.

It's not hearsay because she would be testifying about a conversation she had first hand knowledge of. If some one else repeated what she had told them about the conversation, that would be hearsay.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ever hear of hearsay? It is not admissible. Especially when it took almost 5 weeks to concoct the story.

Testifying to the existance of the phone call is not hear say.

Testifying to the contents of a direct conversation is not hear say.

Testifying to what she may have heard an unknown person directly say is not hear say.

Testifying as truth something that one person told another and the second person told you, that is hear say.



Are you saying that blind people can't testify to the contents of conversations they have?


>>>>

Martin tells girlfriend what is happening. Girlfriend tells authoritities what Martin told her was happening. Hearsay.

If the "authorities" you mention were to be called to testify, you might be correct.

However since the girl herself would be testifying as to Date and Time of the phone call (not hearsay, confirmation of phone records), her part of the conversation with Martin (no third party invovled), and any other sounds she directly heard over the phone (what an unknown 3rd voice said) - that would not be hearsay.

And since the girl friends statement was used in part of the Probably Cause Affidavit, then the plan it to present her as a witness. You can pretty much bank on the fact that the prosecution will be calling her as a witness.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Testifying to the existance of the phone call is not hear say.

Testifying to the contents of a direct conversation is not hear say.

Testifying to what she may have heard an unknown person directly say is not hear say.

Testifying as truth something that one person told another and the second person told you, that is hear say.



Are you saying that blind people can't testify to the contents of conversations they have?


>>>>

Martin tells girlfriend what is happening. Girlfriend tells authoritities what Martin told her was happening. Hearsay.

If the "authorities" you mention were to be called to testify, you might be correct.

However since the girl herself would be testifying as to Date and Time of the phone call (not hearsay, confirmation of phone records), her part of the conversation with Martin (no third party invovled), and any other sounds she directly heard over the phone (what an unknown 3rd voice said) - that would not be hearsay.

And since the girl friends statement was used in part of the Probably Cause Affidavit, then the plan it to present her as a witness. You can pretty much bank on the fact that the prosecution will be calling her as a witness.


>>>>

Too many time bombs with this girl friend. Everything she heard Martin say is hearsay and not admissable.
And on cross examination the door may be open to what she knows about Martin. On cross the scope is much larger.
"Why was he not in school" could be asked.
And if this girl is of age then her possible record could be introduced.
"Do you know if Trayvon has had any previous confrontations with others" is a valid question as she is on cross examination where the scope is so much wider than direct.
She may have known about the jewlery in his bag he was caught with. Remember, this is cross examination.
No way she testifies unless after a motion in limine where the questions are ruled on by the Judge before she is called.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Martin tells girlfriend what is happening. Girlfriend tells authoritities what Martin told her was happening. Hearsay.

If the "authorities" you mention were to be called to testify, you might be correct.

However since the girl herself would be testifying as to Date and Time of the phone call (not hearsay, confirmation of phone records), her part of the conversation with Martin (no third party invovled), and any other sounds she directly heard over the phone (what an unknown 3rd voice said) - that would not be hearsay.

And since the girl friends statement was used in part of the Probably Cause Affidavit, then the plan it to present her as a witness. You can pretty much bank on the fact that the prosecution will be calling her as a witness.


>>>>

Too many time bombs with this girl friend. Everything she heard Martin say is hearsay and not admissible.

There are aspects of the phone call that are not hearsay and are therefore directly admissible even then there are often cases where hearsay is not admissible.

Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title VII Evidence Section 90.101 Short title. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws

And on cross examination the door may be open to what she knows about Martin. On cross the scope is much larger.

The prosecution asks about the event and on cross examination that opens the door to history?

That seems a stretch.

Does that mean if the defense asks a witness about Zimmerman's truck that the prosecution can then cross examine and ask about violence in Zimmerman's past?

"Why was he not in school" could be asked.
And if this girl is of age then her possible record could be introduced.
"Do you know if Trayvon has had any previous confrontations with others" is a valid question as she is on cross examination where the scope is so much wider than direct.
She may have known about the jewlery in his bag he was caught with. Remember, this is cross examination.

Cross examination, as I understand it, is limited to the subject and evidence presented under direct.

That beside the point, I think the reason Martin was on suspension from school (trace amount of marijuana in an empty bag) will end up before the jury who will look at each other go "so?" as it has nothing to do with the case. The "jewlery" was examined by the police and it was determined that none of it was stolen so I'm not sure what that relevance is.

No way she testifies unless after a motion in limine where the questions are ruled on by the Judge before she is called.

I'm pretty sure she will be allowed to testify as the prosecution has already shown a willingness to use her in the Probable Cause Affidavit, the defense may object under hearsay but I don't see her being excluded as she has direct, non-hearsay, testimony as to the existence of the phone call which goes to time-line and other sounds she directly heard (such as an unknown man speaking). None of that his anyway close to hearsay.


>>>>

 

[Ariux]

No, it isn't hearsay. Her testimony is most likely admissible. We'll see how much there is of probative value in her testimony, and how credible she appears on the stand; those are questions for a jury to decide.

Her hearsay will only be admissible under the n1993r rules, whereby Afros are held to a lower standard. How can she appear credible when she's the girlfriend of the thug and when she refused to talk to police for several weeks, and even then it was through a lawyer?

Defense: "Ho, why didn't you call police that night, for Trayvon? Ho, why didn't you talk to police the next day, after you found out what happened? Ho, why were you dating a piece of shit? Ho, have you ever heard Trayvon use a racial slur? Ho..."

 

[Gadawg73]

If the "authorities" you mention were to be called to testify, you might be correct.

However since the girl herself would be testifying as to Date and Time of the phone call (not hearsay, confirmation of phone records), her part of the conversation with Martin (no third party invovled), and any other sounds she directly heard over the phone (what an unknown 3rd voice said) - that would not be hearsay.

And since the girl friends statement was used in part of the Probably Cause Affidavit, then the plan it to present her as a witness. You can pretty much bank on the fact that the prosecution will be calling her as a witness.


>>>>

Too many time bombs with this girl friend. Everything she heard Martin say is hearsay and not admissible.

There are aspects of the phone call that are not hearsay and are therefore directly admissible even then there are often cases where hearsay is not admissible.

Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title VII Evidence Section 90.101 Short title. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws




The prosecution asks about the event and on cross examination that opens the door to history?

That seems a stretch.

Does that mean if the defense asks a witness about Zimmerman's truck that the prosecution can then cross examine and ask about violence in Zimmerman's past?

"Why was he not in school" could be asked.
And if this girl is of age then her possible record could be introduced.
"Do you know if Trayvon has had any previous confrontations with others" is a valid question as she is on cross examination where the scope is so much wider than direct.
She may have known about the jewlery in his bag he was caught with. Remember, this is cross examination.

Cross examination, as I understand it, is limited to the subject and evidence presented under direct.

That beside the point, I think the reason Martin was on suspension from school (trace amount of marijuana in an empty bag) will end up before the jury who will look at each other go "so?" as it has nothing to do with the case. The "jewlery" was examined by the police and it was determined that none of it was stolen so I'm not sure what that relevance is.

No way she testifies unless after a motion in limine where the questions are ruled on by the Judge before she is called.

I'm pretty sure she will be allowed to testify as the prosecution has already shown a willingness to use her in the Probable Cause Affidavit, the defense may object under hearsay but I don't see her being excluded as she has direct, non-hearsay, testimony as to the existence of the phone call which goes to time-line and other sounds she directly heard (such as an unknown man speaking). None of that his anyway close to hearsay.


>>>>

No, as a juvenile, NOTHING in Martin's past will be allowed in as evidence.
Unless the prosecution calls this girl friend or the family.
"What was Trayvon doing at your house and why was he not in school" would be the first question to the father.
So guess what? The prosecution never calls the father.
And the defense is prohibited from asking that on direct because Martin was a minor.
Real fair for Zimmerman, huh?
Fact is this part of this case is so biased against Zimmerman it is sick.
Similar to a case I am working now.
Of course she will be allowed to testify but the prosecution would be very foolish to do so because then the possiblility of testimony that would be prohobited from getting into evidence due to Martin being a minor could possibly get in as the prosecution opens the door to it if they call her on direct.
But in seeking for the truth and justice they just may call her and let the chips fall where they fall.