BoatBanter.com - The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman

In article , says...

On 5/1/2012 8:58 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/30/2012 4:44 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:21:41 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:01 -0400, wrote:

The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that
it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the
burden of proof.

Cite?

If you are going to play the game, you really have to watch the news.
They had the bail hearing on TV in it's entirety.
The fat cop with the badge said he had no knowledge of how the fight
started or who initiated it.

I have heard it, and I also read the transcripts. NO WHERE did anyone
from the state say that they "have no evidence".

Read it again.

O'Mara ask about whether the state had any evidence about any of this
in several separate questions about different aspects of the state's
case and they were all answered "no"

ZIMMERMAN'S ATTORNEY O'MARA: "Zimmerman confronted Martin," those
words (in the affidavit of probable cause). Where did you get that
from?

DALE GILBREATH, INVESTIGATOR, STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: That was from
the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog
walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with,
there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But
it was between two people.

O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word
confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want
in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the
word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word
confronted if you have any.

GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. ...

O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?

GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.

O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to,
spoke with.

GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.

O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion,
do you?

GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more
explanation you wish.

O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you?

GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question.

(later)

BERNARDO DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Sir, you were asked
about the next paragraph here that Zimmerman confronted Martin and a
struggle ensued and you were asked a lot about what "confronted"
means. If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and was going home
and somebody comes up to him and starts accusing him (inaudible),
wouldn't you consider that a confrontation?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn't turn around and start -- he
was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman's the one that
approached Mr. Martin, correct?

O'MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is
given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he's
talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence.

JUDGE KENNETH LESTER, JR., FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT: What's the
objection?

O'MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in
evidence to the witness.

LESTER: Sustained.

DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word "confronted" sir?

GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the
facts that we had along with the witness statements of the
argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one
of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from
several witnesses.

DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding
his own business? Is that correct?

O'MARA: Again, your honor, we point to -- and this is not in evidence
and he cannot present it that way to the witness.

LESTER: Sustained.

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Martin, the route he was taking was towards his
house, correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And he was unarmed?

GILBREATH: Yes.

(later)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?

GILBREATH: Do I know?

O'MARA: Right.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started
the fight?

GILBREATH: No.

(later)

O'MARA: That statement that he had given you -- sorry, law enforcement
that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was
assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that
specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that
were in his statement given several hours after the event?

GILBREATH: Which two?

O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one.

GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.

O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that
conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence
that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my
car?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?

GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in
time?

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his
suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that
conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than
filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one,
as to who threw the first blow, no.

(later)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous
interviews to the police did he not.

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he
made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did
he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground
and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just
physically beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that
indicates that's not true?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the
defendant -- did he not state or claim that the victim in this case,
Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so
that he couldn't breathe?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that's when he was able to get
free and grab the gun. Or I'm sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun,
did he not claim that too at some point. climb that?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- and I'm going to get into every little
contradiction but wouldn't you agree that a lot of his statements can
be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what
he says himself?

GILBREATH: Yes.

(later)

O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained,
correct?

GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have
sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that.

O'MARA: Have you asked him for them?

GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.

O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them?

GILBREATH: Sure.

O'MARA: I'll give them to the state.

I'm sorry, just where does the state say in this diatribe that they have
no evidence on this case?

holy ****!

Okay, point me out specific instance where the state says they have no
evidence in the entire case.....

Why, you are the only one who has said that here? None of us has, not
me, not Greg, not Fox, nobody, period...

There's a HUGE difference in saying that as opposed to saying that the
state said they didn't' have any evidence of "who started the fight". I
don't think you'll understand though, FOX told you and you believe it.

You are dead wrong.