Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Extending The Annals Of Dumb | Main | A (Fat) Nation Divided »

May 21, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2016305b323aa970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Zimmerman Case - Dershowitz Said What? No Context No Peace!:

Comments

Gus

What is ABC news?

Neo

I've said since Zimmerman turned himself in that this was solely a case of taking the judgement that the police made and turning it over to a judge (and jury). The outcome was predetermined when they made the charge (2nd degree) murder.
It was "a bridge too far".

JorgXMcKie

And they're still banging the "who instigated it" drum. Boy, they don't give up their narrative easily, do they?

If they can show Zimmerman threw the first punch, maybe. If they're relying on him asking Martin what he was doing in the neighborhood they're instigating.

Rob Crawford

Guttman, AFAICR, is a Crump puppet.

matt

it's "game on" between the Catholic Church and the administration. LUN.

Ignatz

He probably said "This case should be closed" and an NBC editor got a hold of the tape and did their usual fine job.

Clarice

That's my thought, too, Iggy.

jimmyk

If there were any justice Guttman would be pounding the pavement looking for a new career, based on his earlier reporting of the case. Maybe he could get a job editing at Dystel & Goderich.

Chubby

If he did say it, which he didn't, he meant "It's a very *closed* case" -- as in "very" open and shut case of self defense.

jwest

To be fair, ABC has been doing a better job than NBC, CBS, CNN and Shep Smith at Fox as far as presenting facts favorable to Zimmerman.

Jay

Thought you might be interested in this article where the Wash Post hires their own analyst to review the 9-11 calls and shockingly said expert believe Martin is crying for help:

One of those experts is Alan R. Reich, and his answer is that he is certain he can hear a young man he concludes is Martin pleading for his life, from the start of the 45-second recording until the end.

“I’m begging you,” he hears the younger of the two men yell as the recording begins.

Twenty-six seconds later: “Help me.”

In the last second before the gunshot: a high-pitched “Stop!”

In an effort to find out what might be discerned from the crucial 911 call, The Washington Post retained Reich, 67, a former University of Washington professor with a doctorate in speech science who has worked for prosecutors and defense attorneys in hundreds of criminal and civil cases over a period of more than 35 years.

Where many people have heard only vague yells on the recording, Reich said that he has found language. Reich also identified two distinct male voices outside, in the background of the recording — one younger, one older — that he concludes are those of Martin, 17, and Zimmerman, 28.

At least they acknowledge that there is room for doubt...

Clarice

Whistle when this clown is allowed to testify as an expert.

myiq2xu

Taylor Marsh:

An individual’s civil rights is one of the cornerstones of our democratic republic.

Anyone, regardless of race, who abridges another’s civil rights when that person is doing nothing wrong and going about his or her business, is creating an event out of nowhere. But when that person helps cause an altercation that leads to the death of an innocent unarmed citizen, who wasn’t doing anything wrong in the first place, something has not only gone terribly wrong in our society, but with the foundational tenet of freedom in this country.

http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/05/race-center-stage-on-right/

Jay

Clarice,

what I find funny is the paragraph touting his credentials which become entirely obliterated by his conclusion.

Though I wonder if the WP edited in some manner what he told them...

myiq2xu

NBC editor got a hold of the tape and did their usual fine job.

More like "This is not even a close case."

Danube of Thought

I watched Dershowitz on Huckabee over the weekend. It's inconceivable to me that he has told anyone that this is a "very close case." And the two sentences Gutman concatenates simply do not make sense together.

Very strange.

Appalled

Our Gracious Host:

I think Derschowitz consented to an interview for this story. The quote appears in the Good Morning America segment at the top of the story. It was definitely edited.

Note Guttman, at the end of the segment, says that the prosecution is arguing that Zimmerman started the fight "merely by leaving the truck." There's a legal theory for the ages. I wonder if Guttman was merely being glib, or echoing something he's been told by Corey (who was also interviewed for the story)

Jay

Taylor Marsh:

Is an idiot.

You don't have the "right" to start a fist fight with someone who is staring at you or who asks "what are you doing here"?

Clarice

Yes, Jay...what a crock..

jimmyk

The "older" and "younger" voice judgments are probably based on pitch (speaking of dumb), yet it seems pretty likely that of the two, Trayvon had the low voice. I think there was some audio of him at the 7-11, and I'm guessing others would surface if the family and Crump haven't flushed them all.

myiq2xu

Taylor Marsh let her mind wander and it never came back.

GMAX

Taylor March is a DNC operative and has been an idiot for a very long time, its not a recent transformation I can assure you.

Why doesn't someone ask Prof Dershowitz if that is what he said, and exactly what he meant? I am sure he has an e-mail addy at Harvard that is pretty darn easy to find. A former star student perhaps could engage the good prof?

Sue

Is this expert basing his opinion on the original reporting of Martin as a child with tea and skittles?

Rob Crawford

Where many people have heard only vague yells on the recording, Reich said that he has found language.

The words appear to be "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!"

Gus

Oh I see ""But when that person helps cause an altercation "" I guess WIFE BEATERS are off the hook now.
Liberals NEVER use logic.

Rob Crawford

Taylor March is a DNC operative and has been an idiot for a very long time

But you repeat yourself...

Ignatz

--Note Guttman, at the end of the segment, says that the prosecution is arguing that Zimmerman started the fight "merely by leaving the truck." There's a legal theory for the ages.--

This theory could make going to the grocery store, movies, public restroom and a thousand other places, rather legally perilous I would think.

Captain Hate

Taylor Marsh let her mind wander and it never came back.

This is making me silently giggle a lot.

Jay

the prosecution is arguing that Zimmerman started the fight "merely by leaving the truck."

One of the meme's I'm starting to see by the true believers in "the narrative" is that Zimmerman was attempting a citizen's arrest and/or tried to "detain" Martin which is why the idea that "Martin was doing nothing wrong" has become so important to them.

Gus

I believe the LEFTIST LIBTARDS have stepped in it and don't want to backtrack.
Skittles GOT HIMSELF KILLED by brutally assaulting a man who was carrying legally.
If the standard LIBTARDS are allowing SKITTLES to act upon is accepted.
Chicago will be AWASH in smelly LIBTARD blood today.

cboldt

-- Why doesn't someone ask Prof Dershowitz if that is what he said, and exactly what he meant? --

I bet he comes out of his own volition, if the quote misrepresents his sentiment. Not to give ABC much in the way of slack while agreeing that they've been more even with the story, as a network - the problem seems to be Matt Gutman, personally, not ABC news.

GMAX

One of the meme's I'm starting to see by the true believers in "the narrative" is that Zimmerman was attempting a citizen's arrest

How far can you shift the goalposts until you are outside the stadium and miles away?

There is not a single shred of evidence that would support this wild speculation.

cboldt

-- that Zimmerman was attempting a citizen's arrest and/or tried to "detain" Martin ... --

That comes out of one of DeeDee's interviews. She evolves through Trayvon asking "Do you have a problem?" to "Why are you following me?" to "Why are you stopping me?"

Jay

Gmax,
there was never any shred of evidence that Martin was gunned down for "looking suspicious" either, but that didn't stop them.

You have to remember we're dealing with people who are not critically thinking or examining facts, they are tying together words like "neighborhood watch" and running with them...

Tom Maguire

I have to say I prefered Taylor Marsh when she wrote in English.

What, pray tell, does her second paragraph mean?

It goes well beyond the Trayvon Martin case, but remains pinned to it, because of the reaction to the killing of the youth by Pres. Obama, which was understandable to anyone who is a step away from reactionary Obama derangement syndrome, but also what’s developed in other communities since.

Well. In her article, she takes a broad view of Martin's civil rights, which apparently extend to assaulting people who have annoyed him in some manner.

She doesn't put it quite like that, of course.

narciso

'Darnak at Tanagra, when the walls fell'

Jay

cboldt,

interesting point on Dee-Dee.

We'll have to see if Corey alleges something similar.

xbradtc

'Darnak at Tanagra, when the walls fell'

Great. FINALLY I understand Narciso!

jimmyk

That comes out of one of DeeDee's interviews. She evolves through Trayvon asking "Do you have a problem?" to "Why are you following me?" to "Why are you stopping me?"

Meaning her story evolved as she retold it over time? Or within one retelling she claims all those things happened? If the former, she's going to have very little credibility. And even if the latter, it sounds implausible.

Csnyder

It may have been covered previously, but what are the evidentiary rules that apply to Dee Dee's testimony being admitted?

cboldt

-- We'll have to see if Corey alleges something similar. --

For now all we have is "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

But, the state has DeeDee saying that Trayvon thought he was being stopped, so the state can argue that's what happened - it's based on evidence. The only trouble is that DeeDee is inconsistent on the detail, making that conclusion lose all sorts of credibility.

cboldt

-- Or within one retelling she claims all those things happened? --

I think in one telling, the one with Crump.

What witnesses say in the Trayvon Martin case, Moni Basu, CNN, on or before March 28, 2012

"What are you stopping me for?" Martin asked Zimmerman, according to [Crump recounting] the girl.

I'll root around for the other versions.

Gus

Dee Dee and Crump are pretty much irrelevant. Dee Dee is assuming most of her nonsensical garbage and Crump is not involved in the case.

cboldt
If that audio is not lost, will the audio be of Zimmerman asking "what are you doing here," as the girlfriend claims ...

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's story may not hold up to scrutiny, Joy-Ann Reid, The Grio, March 28, 2012


The girl heard Trayvon ask: "Why are you following me, man?" before, she says, he was pushed by the older man.

Trayvon Martin: three ways George Zimmerman's story is falling apart, Matt Williams in New York, guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 March 2012

IIRC, the Crump recording is near inaudible, which should work great for Corey, as she can claim it says anything she wants it to say. I'm sure, if DeeDee was asked, she'd testify that Zimmerman spoke first, and said he was going to shoot Martin.

jimmyk

according to [Crump recounting] the girl.

If it's filtered through Crump then it has no probative value whatsoever, I would think. He's clearly going to lead her to put things a certain way.

sdferr

Russell Oberlin

William Warfield

Which is the elder? (hint, one is 31, the other is 31)

Appalled

The basic problem I have with the Dee Dee testimony that was made available is that she says Martin was running and he was tired, and then we have perched on top of Zimmerman him breaking GZ's nose and banging his head against the cement.

cboldt

-- If it's filtered through Crump then it has no probative value whatsoever, I would think. --

For reading purposes, as one finds the argument that Zimmerman was stopping Martin, its good to look back to find the source of that contention. It goes back to late March, well before the DeeDee interview with de la Rionda became public.

I recall reading news reports as Crump was playing audio for the press, and one reporter said, at the time, the recording was inaudible. I believe that recording is out now, but haven't bothered to look for it. All it's good for is entertainment.

I don't know which version(s) DeeDee uses in her interview with de la Rionda.

narciso

Ah Joy Ann, she was the MSNBCer who was making apologies for Sharpton, but inadvertently gave away the gameplan of Crump and co.

cboldt

I think DeeDee's version settled on the version that accuses Zimmerman of "following," not "stopping." From the de la Rionda interview, "Why are you following me for?"

sailor

It has come more and more apparent to me that the true reporting we get here in the US nearly always comes from the UK papers.

Some guy

Does the alleged audio expert mentioned above know that there was a young witness who might be one of the voices he hears in his head?

Danube of Thought

I'll give it a try on what the hearsay rules will allow, and not allow, DeeDee to say at trial.

--Can't say: anything TM simply told her ("I'm headed home"; "he's following me"; "I'm running.")

--Can say: any noises she heard; any "excited utterances" made by TM; anything she heard GZ say.

Danube of Thought

"A former star student perhaps could engage the good prof?"

In the absence of a star, I'll give it a shot.

jimmyk

Regardless of what she's allowed to say, if her past statements are characterized as having "settled on a version," it seems to me that witness's credibility is in deep trouble.

cboldt

That "Do you have a problem?" version never came from DeeDee - that is a Team Zimmerman version.

I think, with DeeDee, it is either "following" or "stopping," and between those two, "following" has the better support.

Gus

Any Attorney more than one year out of law school will gently rip Doo Doo to shreds.
Unless we have 12 MORONS on the jury, Zimmerman walks, and Sanford burns.

Some guy

RE: Dee Dee

Can anyone imagine hearing what she alleges to have heard, then not contacting *anyone*?

Not the police, not Trayvon's parents, not her parents...

Is there any record whether or not she tried to call Trayvon's phone afterward? Which have to be the absolute minimum of what you would expect, just to see if he survived.

Would a jury believe that a young woman could hear a friend get attacked and murdered over the phone, and then do NOTHING?

cboldt

-- Regardless of what she's allowed to say, if her past statements are characterized as having "settled on a version," it seems to me that witness's credibility is in deep trouble. --

I haven't done much study on it, but my sense is that the "stopping" version is Crump embellishing for his audience, the press, not DeeDee switching between versions.

Still, DeeDee has credibility problems that I think are overwhelming. Not just the timing of her being found (she never came forward, she is a reluctant witness), or the fact that she has an interest in protecting the memory of Martin; the version she tells to de la Rionda has Martin reaching home, not going indoors, and minutes later being face to face with Zimmerman. She is going to want to take that back with some sort of clarifying excuse, and that will dent her credibility.

MarkO

It is likely that whatever DeeDee claims she heard Zimmerman say will find its way to the jury. She is the most dangerous of witnesses.

xbradtc

DoT, why is it that DeeDee might be able to testify about what she heard GZ say, but not what she heard TM say (aside from Excited Utterances)?

Tom Maguire
Would a jury believe that a young woman could hear a friend get attacked and murdered over the phone, and then do NOTHING?

I am sure she is a lovely young lady with many fine qualities, but after listening to her for five minutes, yes, I could believe she got off the phone, turned on the television, and moved on.

Adjoran

The problem with Dee Dee's testimony - other than the fact she sounds coached and never came forward - is going to be the time the call ended. If GZ was still on with 911 at that moment, then nothing she has to say is relevant.

Redbrow

Any idea why the club house video listed by the prosecutor has not been released yet?

Danube of Thought

DoT, why is it that DeeDee might be able to testify about what she heard GZ say

Because GZ is a party, and statements by a party--"admissions"--are excluded from the definition of hearsay.

xbradtc

Ah, I see. And as a party, he can rebut, I presume, whereas hearsay cannot, by definition, be rebutted?

Ignatius J Donnelly

I am sure she is a lovely young lady with many fine qualities, but after listening to her for five minutes, yes, I could believe she got off the phone, turned on the television, and moved on


LOL!


Ignatius J Donnelly

The problem with Dee Dee's testimony - other than the fact she sounds coached and never came forward - is going to be the time the call ended. If GZ was still on with 911 at that moment, then nothing she has to say is relevant.

The call ended sometime around 7:16.

TM's headphones were found in his pocket. Tray took 'em off before the fisticuffs started. Police chief Lee seemed to imply that TM did not go far after his intial run for the border. He said TM was just starting to walk home when he spotted GZ. GZ said TM came out from behind a house. I'm not sure where lee got his info but neither story jibes with Dee Dee's version.

Jack is Back

OT:And to all you jarheads who attempt to fly, don't forget tomorrow:

May 22, 1912 — The Marine Corps' first pilot, 1st Lt. Alfred A. Cunningham, reported to the Naval Academy for “duty in connection with aviation” and later did flight instruction. This date recognized as the official start of Marine Corps' Aviation.

Porchlight

anything she heard GZ say.

How does she know it was Zimmerman?

Ignatz

--It goes well beyond the Trayvon Martin case, but remains pinned to it, because of the reaction to the killing of the youth by Pres. Obama.--

No wonder they're trying to pin this on Zimmerman. Explains the high pitched girly screaming too.
Surely 2nd degree murder rates a high crime for impeachment purposes.

That paragraph is convoluted enough to be one of mine.

cboldt

-- How does she know it was Zimmerman? --

Conventional wisdom, FWIW, has her recognizing Trayvon's voice over the phone. The only other person who comes in proximity to Martin, by everybody's account, including Zimmerman's account, is Zimmerman. Ergo, the other voice must be Zimmerman's. She doesn't have to say she knows it's Zimmerman. All she has to claim is "a different person." We fill in the rest.

If more people were involved, then this trick would not work to single out an individual.

narciso

LOL, Ignatz, I wonder if Taranto did one of his misplaced metaphor segments.

Porchlight

She doesn't have to say she knows it's Zimmerman. All she has to claim is "a different person." We fill in the rest.

Thanks. I just wanted to know if she is technically allowed to say "I heard Zimmerman" or she has to say "I heard a voice saying this" and Zimmerman is implied.

cboldt

-- I just wanted to know if she is technically allowed to say "I heard Zimmerman" or she has to say "I heard a voice saying this" and Zimmerman is implied. --

It would have been better to get her on the record about the pitch and other qualities of the pother voice she heard, before she had a chance to hear Zimmerman's call with dispatch.

But I think her story has enough holes in it, that if it is told, it sinks Martin and exonerates Zimmerman.

Comanche Voter

ABC News just makes stuff up? They've taken a page from the Los Angeles Times playbook?

Say it ain't so Joe!!!

Danube of Thought

Found a contact for Dershowitz a sent him an inquiry a few hours ago. Nothing heard. How dare he ignore me!

I think technically she would have to say "I heard a voice say...," but in the circumstances if I were the defense I'd let her say "I heard Zimmerman say..." if the prosecutor is inept enough to elicit the testimony that way. Then on cross you ask, "how did you know it was Zimmerman? Had you heard him before that night? When did you first learn his name?"

And so on....

Clarice

If the case is a bench trial, the judge has a bit more discretion on hearsay, the conceit being he's wise enough to know it when he hears it and weight it accordingly.
Dee Dee doesn't seem very bright to me and I imagine if this case is tried before a jury, it will be very hard to get her to answer within the bounds of what's permissible.

Ignatz

--if this case is tried before a jury, it will be very hard to get her to answer within the bounds of what's permissible--

I have watched some real Abbot and Costello routines over hearsay testimony and objections to it.
I think I might pay to watch Dee Dee's testimony.

Rick Ballard

My understanding is that O'Mara will be able to depose DeeDee. I'm sure he'll begin with a recitation of the penalties for perjury and end with "I look forward to seeing you in court.". In between, without benefit of jury, he'll run her through a Cuisnart and let ole Bernie decide if he really wants to hang his case on her babbled bullshit.

Bruce
If the case is a bench trial, the judge has a bit more discretion on hearsay, the conceit being he's wise enough to know it when he hears it and weight it accordingly. Dee Dee doesn't seem very bright to me and I imagine if this case is tried before a jury, it will be very hard to get her to answer within the bounds of what's permissible.
Prosecution shouldn't be able to lead her that much, should it? Of course, they will prep her, but as pointed out, she will probably be humorous to watch, esp. if they can't lead her.
Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

The prosecution shouldn't be able to lead her at all, Bruce, except for preliminary matters that would be uncontested (name, address, etc.).

But I agree with Rick that Dee Dee's testimony will be useless to the prosecution after her deposition.

Rick Ballard

She'd have to be fitted with a shock collar, an ear bud and testify sitting on Crump's lap to be worth a nickel to Bernie.

I believe we'll see "unable to testify due to emotional trauma" floated prior to deposition. That's what Crump's garbage about "had to be hospitalized" was all about in the first place.

Danube of Thought

I just loved studying the hearsay rule in evidence class--the rationale behind it, what is and isn't hearsay, and the reasons behind the many exceptions to it. The key concepts are that in order for testimony about what someone said outside the court to be hearsay, the out-of-court statement must be (a) an assertion of some fact (b) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Really wonderful issues can arise about whether both conditions are met for a given statement in a given set of circumstances.

Lots of fun.

Ignatz

--Really wonderful issues can arise about whether both conditions are met for a given statement in a given set of circumstances.

Lots of fun.--

Spent an afternoon watching my lawyer and a sharp judge repeatedly cutting the opposing lawyer off as he got half way through question after question only to try and effectively rephrase it so it didn't elicit hearsay. Of course by the time he did the answer was pretty much useless. Had to suppress the laughter but it was fun.
Would have been more fun if it hadn't been billed by the hour, of course.

Clarice

Around here in federal court the rule seems to be weighing the probative vs the prejudicial values when it's a tough call.. I had a dreadful evidence teacher and the class was useless but I was fortunate that my work was always before judges, not juries, and that's a different kettle of fish.

Clarice

Niters.

Walter

I think her recollections of Trayvon's statements will be allowed to come in.

She is not there to attest to the truth of what she heard. That is, the posecutor will argue that she is testifying to Trayvon's state of mind ("I thought he was following me and I felt threatened" rather than the actual facts of what happened as seen by Trayvon ("Z followed and threatened me").

I personally think there has never been a jury that has understood or applied this distinction, but it will allow DD to be heard.

Walter

Last week, my first* hearsay objection was "If Mr. X is going to testify in this hearing, I'd really appreciate the opportunity to ask him a few questions". I started to have a good feeling when the admin judge allowed the question and said I could revisit the issue later "if necessary".
__________
*I let the rest of them ride. As much fun as the back and forth of objections can be for lawyers, I think it risks annoying the trier of fact.

Sara

Get ready to rub your eyes with disbelief:

1913:36 – Dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following suspicious person

1913:36 – Dispatcher advises Zimmerman “Okay; we don’t need you to do that”

1915:23 – Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends

1916:43 – 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help

1917:20 – Shot fired; screams from Zimmerman cease

1917:40 – Officer T. Smith arrives on scene

1919:43 – Officer T. Smith locates and places Zimmerman in custody.


Danube of Thought

As Walter says, the state-of-mind exception is the huge issue. If his statements can be offered to reflect his state of mind (fear; desire to avoid confrontation) they will likely come in. The jury will be admonished not to take them as proof that he was actually running away, or actually headed home, but none of the jurors will know what the judge is talking about.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

How is Trayvon's state of mind relevant? Isn't it Zimmerman's state of mind that is critical to the case's outcome?

Danube of Thought

"How is Trayvon's state of mind relevant?"

You could argue that one in his state of mind--i.e. he was afraid and trying to escape--would never throw the first punch. Not at all persuasive, but my guess it would come in.

Beasts of England

I hope DeeDee takes the stand. And I can't wait for her to be confounded by a question from O’Mara and then locate Crump -- or any of the Crumpettes(TM) -- in the courtroom and ask 'What you say he say?'.

Walter

@xbradtc @5:27

The reason hearsay ("I heard him say this") is disfavored is that cross-examination is a powerful tool to demonstrate when someone is lying or exaggerating. There is little more fun in legal practice than watching a jerk of an opponent get tangled up in misstatements on the stand. (The passing of expressions on his or her face if they are self-aware enough to realize it as it happens might surpass, however).

I'll chip in with Iggy to watch it happen to DD.

air jordan homme

Ich hoffe, DeeDee nimmt den Zeugenstand. Und ich kann nicht warten, bis ihr durch eine Frage von O'Mara verwechselt zu werden, und suchen Sie dann Crump - oder eine der Crumpettes (TM) - im Gerichtssaal und fragen: "Was Sie sagen, hat er gesagt? '.

Ignatius J Donnelly

GZ says TM came out from behind a house and sucker punched him. Witnesses heard a verbal
altercation before the physical altercation.
How does O'Mara handle this and Gz's other
attempts to gild the lily of his already justifiable self defense claim?

Ignatz

--GZ says TM came out from behind a house and sucker punched him. Witnesses heard a verbal
altercation before the physical altercation.
How does O'Mara handle this and Gz's other
attempts to gild the lily of his already justifiable self defense claim?--


Assuming that is what GZ claims and what witnesses heard, I've had plenty of verbal altercations in my life and in nearly every one it would have been quite possible to have been sucker punched.

Your assumption that GZ 'gilded the lily' and the O Mara has some inconsistency to overcome seems unwarranted.

Ignatius J Donnelly

Ignatz,
Zimmerman never mentions a verbal argument before the fight.
Nice try though.

Ignatz

Zimmerman was apparently interviewed for several hours by the police.
How do you know what he mentioned to them?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame