May 14 2012
A Peek At Evidence In Trayvon Martin Case
We finally get a peak at the evidence against Zimmerman in the shooting death of young Trayvon Martin. And one of the big surprises is an unknown video from the club house at the complex where the shooting took place.
According to the documents, prosecutors also have new video evidence from the night of the shooting — both from the 7-Eleven store where Trayvon purchased Skittles and Arizona iced tea, and from the clubhouse of Retreat at Twin Lakes, the apartment complex where the teen was killed.
This could be nothing of import, or could be something pivotal. We won’t know for sure until trial I wager. But here is a close up of the clubhouse area from maps out on the web, and possible viewing angles towards the incident.
Click to enlarge. Let me stress again these are possible viewing angles of interest. Most video cameras are not aimed out to distance (usually aimed to cover entrances). So we don’t know what could be on the video> It may be nothing except confirmation of events and timing.
One angle shown above is across the pool from the far corner of the clubhouse. Viewing is limited by the back of the clubhouse and the buildings were Zimmerman parked his truck. The second angle is from the entrance near the mailboxes. It’s viewing is limited by the row of buildings across the top.
Neither angle would see the location where the incident took place (F). Neither angle probably has much detail (if any) at those distances. The only area of interest possible is the area near the mailboxes, and what Zimmerman did as he left his truck.
In my mind it is this last potential ‘evidence’ that could be most problematic to Zimmerman. If his actions outside the truck on video do not match his testimony, his entire case is gone. Of course, these things can play into the defense as well, so we shall see.
I would be surprised if the camera could detect whether Zimmerman’s gun was in his waist band or out in his hand. But that is a possibility.
Other evidence is quite telling as well, with a large number of police investigator statements – obviously not in Zimmerman’s favor:
Other primary witnesses include four FDLE investigators and three investigators from the office of state attorney Norm Wolfinger plus two from Corey’s office, including Dale Gilbreath, who hand-delivered the motion to Seminole County clerks about 20 minutes before their doors closed for the day Monday.
Five fire-rescue personnel are listed as secondary witnesses. So are a fingerprints expert with Sanford police, and the following FDLE experts: a firearms specialist, DNA expert, trace evidence expert and fingerprints expert.
It should be noted that the police actually pushed for Zimmerman to be charged that fateful night:
The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
…
Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman’s version of events.
The lead homicide detective probing the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin wanted the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer slapped with manslaughter charges from the get-go.
All those claiming this is open and shut for Zimmerman, and the police investigation found no issues, are horribly wrong. Police went so far as to apply for charges before the States Attorney overruled them. They are not going to be goo for Zimmerman. All 18 of them currently listed.
I am sure there is more to come in this controversial case. But I have yet to see anything exculpatory – as would be expected with the prosecutors case. If there was, it would have derailed the charges being made in the first place.
“It should be noted that the police actually pushed for Zimmerman to be charged that fateful night:”
This was another example of false reporting.
“Some news agencies have reported that Sanford’s lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger’s office put a stop to it. THE CITY OF SANFORD ISSUED A STATEMENT SAYING THAT IS NOT TRUE.
Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists “manslaughter” as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.
Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman’s account – that he had acted in self-defense.
“The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event,” Serino told the Sentinel March 16. “Everything I have is adding up to what he says.”
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency
Marsh,
You are truly delusional if you think a prosecutor would call for a trial where the lead investigator did not support the evidence.
You are grasping my friend. And as someone who knows prosecutors and how they think, trust me when I say your logic is laughable.
Serino is not witness for the prosecution. Connect the dots….
“Serino is not witness for the prosecution.”
And your logic is laughable if you think the defense won’t call him….IF this ever goes to trial.
The point is, you bought into the false reporting that he wanted Zimmerman charged that night.
It never happened.
Keep telling yourself that Marsh. And when he is asked in court by Zimmerman’s lawyers if it happened make sure you have a healthy helping of crow with you.
You’re going to need it because any defense lawyer worth their salt would try for the opening, and no prosecutor would go forward with that kind of issue on the case.
Grasping at strawmen.
“multiple sources told ABC News.” Well, by golly that should do it, Multiple sources, uh, none identified, told that paragon of virtue, ABC news. And I’m sure ABC ‘correctly’ reported it all right down to the last, “we didn’t charge him because there was no evidence to support a charge”
Well, if multiple sources are so sure, they could come out and show us some of this proof.
The police did not find enough evidence to charge him and that is why they did not charge him. They never did charge him, still haven’t. Only the ‘political appointee’ special prosecutor bypassed a grand jury and filed charges.
“Investigator Chris Serino, of the Sanford Police Department, expressed doubt in George Zimmerman’s account of how the shooting went down, ABC News reported Tuesday. ”
This is laughable, the ‘source’ is ABC News. does anymore have to be said?
I don’t understand this:
“You are truly delusional if you think a prosecutor would call for a trial where the lead investigator did not support the evidence.
Serino is not witness for the prosecution. Connect the dots….”
you say someone is delusional if they think a prosecutor would call for a trial where the lead investigator did not support the evidence and then you say Serino is not a witness for the prosecution. I’m relatively sure Serino is considered to be the lead investigator and you say he is not a witness for the prosecution.
I guess they’re going to rely on ABC news to testify….
I’m sure ABC is going to be a lead witness for the prosecution with all this ‘first hand knowledge’ they have.
“If there was, it would have derailed the charges being made in the first place.”
wasn’t the charges derailed? seems as if the police never did bring charges, the special prosecutor did. Seems as if the police never filing charges could be considered as a slight derailment.
AJ:
Once again I ask: What’s up with you? Why does this case get to you so?
I thought your post was thoughtful and fair. Then someone points out discrepancies in the reporting and you go ballistic, telling them they’re dellusional and grasping at strawmen.
I would have expected a, “Thanks for the link to that story. I’ll do a little more investigation and get back to you with what I find out.”
But, I do want to point out that I am truly impressed by the tons of evidence that Martin was killed on Feb 26, I’m a little surprised that none of what was released today indicates that Zimmerman killed Martin in the 2nd degree.
for BGG’s information: this dump today ‘revealed that they have a video from 7-11’ hmmm, revealed that today but BGG ‘already’ knew about it. very good speculating and deducing there.
and I’m sure Martin’s parents are going to be ‘key’ witnesses.
And I’m holding my breath for the ‘first hand’ knowledge of the shooting that the 5 fire department persons have to share with us. I’m sure they can dismiss all the other witnesses after these 5 testify to what they know.
The prosecution even has Zimmerman’s father on their witness list. well Katy bar the door, If zimmerman’s dad doesn’t nail the door shut on George for the prosecution, then what will. Sounds more iron clad all the time. This is the kind of witnesses we’ve been looking for, those that ‘saw it all’ and can hang the villain.
If anything, this information dump today shows the total futility of the state’s case. Plea deal anyone? how about if they drop all charges, they won’t bring charges against the special prosecutor for malicious prosecution. This is turning into a circus. The State of Florida should be embarrassed
Now here is something interesting:
“According to the documents, prosecutors also have new video evidence from the night of the shooting — both from the 7-Eleven store where Trayvon purchased Skittles and Arizona iced tea, ”
Note that BGG: “new video evidence”
does ‘new’ indicate they just got this? or that it was just manufactured? why did they just get this video evidence? Did they attempt to get it earlier, like say Feb 27th? Did it just take a while to get it edited to show what they want it to show? I’ll let someone else define what ‘new’ means.
But, since I’m using Perry Mason techniques, I’ll speculate, deduce,and guess what might be on this ‘new’ video.
Does it:
show T Martin in the store?
does he buy Skittles?
does he buy an Arizona iced tea?
does Martin have a gun in his waistband in the store?
wait, maybe it shows Zimmerman ‘lurking’ outside waving his gun.
that must be it. something damaging to Zimmerman..
will it show Martin dialing his girlfriend on his cell phone, thereby proving he actually had a cell phone.
see what deducing and speculating gets you? Nothing.
see what putting Martins parents on the stand is gonna get them? Nothing. Nothing else that is on the list today is gonna get them anywhere.
Ask yourself why the police never brought charges, to this day. Why did it take politics to get to this stage?
RT,
You’re making a real fool of yourself.
The 7-11 video has been common knowledge since April 9th when this story was published:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_story_unravels_new_questions_about_trayvon_martins_final_hour.html#ixzz1rXQBFYTQ
Yes, I ‘already’ knew about it prior to today.
So did anyone else who was paying attention.
Layman,
Innocent kid killed…
And you call yourself pro life??
What a joke.
One other thing RT:
With the exception of moving violations, Police Departments don’t bring charges.
That legal function is done through the Prosecutor’s (Magistrate or State’s Attorney) office either directly (as in this case) or via a Grand Jury.
BGG,
They are in deep denial. Just like the birthers and the truthers, the IPCC and the Dan Rathers….
They have too much emotion in this. I can be proved wrong tomorrow and would not care, knowing I stood for an innocent, unarmed kid who died needlessly at the hands of a reckless fool.
The law does not always work. And at times the stories take unknown twists. But this one is unfolding as expected.
As of today, Martin was harming no one and Zimmerman was a hot-head vigilante with a gun.
No problem with that position…
Thanks AJ! I ask a legitimate question and get a snarky repsonse and a personal attack.
You just made my case. You’re the one who is irrational here and has too much emotion.
AJ Strata: “I can be proved wrong tomorrow and would not care, knowing I stood for an innocent, unarmed kid who died needlessly at the hands of a reckless fool. … As of today, Martin was harming no one and Zimmerman was a hot-head vigilante with a gun.
That may very well turn out to be the way it went down and if so you can lay claim to being the oracle. However, there is a scenario out there that says: 1) GZ saw a “suspicious guy” and followed him to report his activites to the police. 2) That guy doubled back on GZ and attacked him. 3) That guy got shot and killed.
A tragedy all around as a life was lost and lives are ruined – but in this scenario GZ was not “…a hot-head vigilante with a gun.” When people point out that posibility they are attacked and yet we are the ones said to be “…in deep denial. Just like the birthers and the truthers, the IPCC and the Dan Rathers….”
“What a joke.”
BGG:
Atta boy! a spokesman confirmed it, they haven’t corroborated it, now that is really good information, more Sherlock Holmes, deducing and speculating?
“A spokesman for the law office confirmed that the information came from Martin’s girlfriend, and also, he believed, from a call to Tracy Martin. The law office hadn’t corroborated their account by looking at security camera tapes or at an electronic receipt from the store.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_story_unravels_new_questions_about_trayvon_martins_final_hour.html#ixzz1uu4JHgVa”
If you worked on this case in a law office and you got this disk, wouldn’t you think it would be worth at least a measly law clerk spending 5 minutes to see what they have. and why did they describe it as ‘new’ evidence? This is funny.
how did you say that again? “You’re making a real fool of yourself.”
I don’t recall saying i KNOW something and then put up something that doesn’t prove anything. just more guessing.
You will notice I have attempted to use facts, while you seem to prefer shouting and name calling. that’s what usually happens when you don’t have a clue… and are wrong….
Love this one: “With the exception of moving violations, Police Departments don’t bring charges” you ought to spend a few minutes to think about what you said here. I’m sure you’ll be retracting that statement after you think about it for a while.
AJ, I’m happy that you have remained cool and aloof and emotionless in this discussion.
Tell you what RT… you like to present yourself as being the Interwebz smart guy so why don’t you tell me when, outside of moving violations, Police Departments bring criminal charges against suspects.
Prove me wrong smart guy.
I’ll wait patiently for you to do that.
You’re so woefully unprepared for this discussion that it’s beyond amusing.
And what, precisely, and I “wrong” about RT?
You wanted to know about the 7-11 surveillance video. I told you over and over it existed and then cited a source to back me on that. Even the Prosecutor’s Office has verified its’ existence.
So, again, what am I “wrong” about?
You’re amusing in your ignorance.
How nice….