Z's First Court Appearance: He Lied Under Oath

If these alleged "story changes" are the best the prosecution can manage, this case will be a home run for the defense. They're tasked with proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed second degree murder, pointing out potential inconsistencies in his story will not achieve this. The defense will have a field day with those kinds of desperate tactics if that's what the prosecution plans to employ. They need to do a lot more than criticize Zimmerman for things that he might recall differently. And it has already been pointed out that the investigator flat out admitted that they cannot disprove Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked while returning to his truck, so the prosecution has their work cut out for them.

 

5 things we learned in Zimmerman bond hearing
Investigator testifies that there was no evidence about who started the fight

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47118163/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/


Seminole County Judge Kenneth Lester on Friday allowed George Zimmerman to post a $150,000 bond to go free as he awaits trial on a second degree murder charge for his role in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26. The bond is expected to be posted in several days.

Normally routine, the hearing turned into a mini-trial when defense attorney Mark O’Mara challenged prosecutors' probable-cause affidavit – the document in which prosecutors made their case for arresting Mr. Zimmerman. One of the lead investigators and even Zimmerman himself took the stand. Here are five things we learned.


1. Zimmerman brooded over comments by Trayvon's mother

No turn in the hearing was more unusual than when Zimmerman took the stand himself to make his first public statement on the case, giving the first glimpse into his frame of mind.

Mr. O’Mara conceded that allowing Zimmerman to take the stand at the bond hearing “was very risky,” but said Zimmerman wanted specifically to address several questions raised by Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon's mom, in an interview last week, where she asked why he shot an unarmed teenager.

Zimmerman said he thought Trayvon was an adult, "a little bit younger than I am," and that he didn’t know if Trayvon was armed or not.
Zimmerman ended by saying, “I’m sorry for the loss of your son.”

O’Mara noted that Zimmerman “didn’t want to defend himself, didn’t want to talk about the facts, but he had heard a request from the family, and that’s precisely what he wanted to address.”

After the hearing, an attorney for Trayvon's family called the apology "disingenuous."



2. The extent of Zimmerman's injuries

At the hearing, O’Mara attacked the affidavit in an effort to raise doubts about Zimmerman's guilt and persuade the judge to establish a reasonable bond.
He called attention to claims in the affidavit that Zimmerman “profiled” and “confronted” Martin – assertions that O’Mara said lacked hard evidence.

For one, O’Mara said that Zimmerman sustained several lacerations and a broken nose – undermining the affidavit and suggesting that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said he feared for his life.

Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman, testified via telephone, describing his son's injuries the day after the shooting: “Well, his face was swollen quite a bit, he had a protective cover over his nose, his lip was swollen and cut, and there were two vertical gashes on the back of his head.”

In an attempt to further attack the claims made in the affidavit, O'Mara called to the stand Dale Gilbreath, one of the lead investigators.
Mr. Gilbreath acknowledged that there was no evidence to indicate who started a fight that happened after Zimmerman got out of his car and, at one point, ran after Trayvon.

"Do you know who started the fight?" O’Mara asked him.

"Do I know? No," said Gilbreath, who added that he had not come to the hearing prepared to testify.

"Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?"

“No.”

“The evidence that I found out, I found out in the courtroom today,” O’Mara said to reporters after the hearing.
“I made the decision to review the probable cause affidavit to fill in gaps that we knew existed and expand it to include things like injuries, where those injuries now seem not open for contest.
So that may lead us down a certain path.
There are a lot of questions about this case, not just of guilt, but what really happened.”

Prosecutors say they have evidence, including eyewitness accounts, that suggest Zimmerman chased Trayvon, who at one point turned around and attacked Zimmerman in self-defense 70 yards from the back door of the house where he was staying with his dad, and where he was returning after buying a bag of Skittles and an iced tea at a convenience store.

“The facts are that here’s a 17-year-old young man who was minding his own business and was walking home when confronted by the defendant, who felt that Mr. Martin was committing some type of crime.
Unfortunately, he made the wrong assumption, that’s why the word 'profile' was used, and he 'confronted' Martin,” said Bernie De La Rionda, the state prosecutor, in a closing argument where he suggested the judge set a $1 million bond.


3. ‘Inconsistencies’ in Zimmerman’s story raised police suspicions

Testimony at the hearing suggested that Sanford police – who released Zimmerman without charges before a special prosecutor filed charges against him last week – didn’t fully believe Zimmerman's story, noting” inconsistencies” in his account of how he was attacked by Trayvon.

When Zimmerman was on the stand, Mr. De La Rionda asked him about whether, when police asked him about inconsistencies in his story, he began to say that he didn’t remember exactly what happened.

The judge cut off that line of questioning, saying it veered into evidence that should be introduced at trial.

But during his turn on the stand, Gilbreath drew attention to Zimmerman's assertion to police that Trayvon was at one point running around Zimmerman's car.
Gilbreath questioned why that should make Zimmerman fear for his life.
“[Zimmerman] was so scared that he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin,” Gilbreath said skeptically.

Under questioning from O’Mara, Gilbreath also described new details that Zimmerman told police, including the claim that Trayvon allegedly tried to suffocate Zimmerman and grab for his gun before Zimmerman “scooted away” and shot Trayvon at close range.


4. Trial strategies take shape

From the details revealed, it appears that the prosecution will try to keep its narrative simple: An unarmed teen returning from a snack run gunned down by a jumpy neighborhood-watch captain.

Mr. De La Rionda asked Gilbreath: “If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and coming home and someone starts accusing him of a crime, would you consider that a confrontation?”

“Yes,” Gilbreath responded.

The defense's tack in the hearing, meanwhile, pointed toward an attempt to press the prosecution for actual hard evidence.
In his attack on the probable cause affidavit and questions to Gilbreath, O'Mara suggested that the most relevant evidence so far comes from Zimmerman himself and his injuries, which indicate that, no matter how the fight began, he was justified in defending himself.


5. Amid threats, judge allows unusual bond stipulations

In his decision to allow a $150,000 bond, Judge Lester quickly set aside as "run of the mill" Zimmerman’s two previous brushes with the law – an assault arrest and an injunction over an allegation of domestic violence – and said the case at hand was his main focus.

Because of various threats made against Zimmerman, the judge said he would allow Zimmerman to move to another state for the time being, if it can be arranged, given that he wear a GPS locator and check back in with Florida authorities every three days.

“I’m concerned [for his safety], I just am,” O’Mara said.
“There’s been an upswelling in this case because of the way it was handled initially, and that seems to be focused on George.
Now that we see the evidence, maybe that frustration will be refocused away from George.
We’ll see.
I would hope so.”

 

Wrong again.

Zimmerman is making the self defense claim so his credibility is central to the case for both sides.

Therefore every version of Zimmerman's story that changes even the smallest of facts becomes another point that casts a shadow on his credibility.

His entire defense is based on his claim that Martin attacked him. From behind. If that defense fails because of his credibility then the prosecution's task becomes very easy.

 

The State has no proof of who attacked who. Its ovah.

 

This is not consistent with the facts or timeline of the event:

Evidence that Trayvon Martin Doubled Back

The evidence and timeline is very clear that if Martin were intent on avoiding a confrontation with this person who DeeDee suggested in her own testimony that Martin was afraid of, he would have been very well physically capable of putting a lot of distance in between himself and Zimmerman. However, for whatever reason, he didn't do this and evidence suggests that instead he went back to confront Zimmerman. So I'm not sure where these "witnesses" came from that the prosecution supposedly has, but if they claim they saw Zimmerman "chasing" Martin, that would be incredibly improbable, considering how far away Zimmerman was from Martin when Martin started running down the path toward his townhouse.

 

The only thing his defense has to do is to inspire reasonable doubt in the jury. Considering that the investigator already admitted himself that they can't disprove Zimmerman's story, the doubt already exists and the trial hasn't even started. The prosecution is going to apparently rely on witness testimony (hardly considered very reliable in court), and other supposed "evidence" to suggest that Zimmerman chased Martin. I feel compelled to wish them "good luck." They're going to need it.

 

His error is not material. If you think you can get him for perjury, you know nothing of the law.

 

lol.....I can't believe people are still trying to use that dumb ass fake map from wagist. ha aha..........it's no different than saying Z is guilty.

 

It is very material as it goes towards credibility. The only thing that can keep Z from a conviction is if he can convince the jury he is reliable and these changes, which are always very self serving, simply prove he cannot be trusted. I'm sure his dishonesty will be ignored by many of his supporters but to the honest people among us, it is obvious he screwed up the first time he got on the stand.

 

The investigator never said they can't disprove Z's story. Inventing these fantasies are doing nothing to help Z.

 

They don't need to prove Z hit Trayvon first. This was pointed out a long time ago but your camp keeps clinging to fantasies.

 

Dumb. Not only dumb, but desperately dumb. You don't know what he thought when he met him face to face, like the kid that hit me that I saw close up and told the police he was around 25. He turned out to be 17 also.

 

You left out the part where Z said "I didn't know his age." We have him on record correctly saying Trayvon was in his late teens.

We also know "a little bit younger" than 28 cannot be 17. At most 24 but definitely not 17.

It's encouraging to know this crap is the best you guys can come up with to explain Z lying in his first court appearance. I can't wait for Corey to get him on the stand in the trial. He will break down like a little baby.

 

He was looking at him face to face while on the phone with dispatch. For Z to say he didn't know his age and say he thought he was a little bit younger are both proven false by his own words.

The best you can do is practice voodoo mind reading while we are pointing to the facts of Z's own words.

 

Who's we. You got a mouse in your pocket?

So far you have claimed everything Zimmerman has said was a lie, yet no one has any proof of that except you. Like I said, better call the Prosecution as you seem to have knowledge of the event no one else has.

 

On the stand he said "I didn't know his age" and he thought he was a "little bit younger."

Both of those are proven false by the fact he is on record stating Trayvon is in his late teens. It's rather hilarious to watch you guys try and defend an obvious lie. You backed the wrong horse and you guys are incapable of admitting it so no matter what happens, what facts are revealed, or even Z's conviction, you guys will still claim Z did nothing wrong.

 

It is actually kind of sad to see your desperation and inability to wait for a decision from the court where the actual evidence, as opposed to your made up evidence, will come out.

 

It's actually kind of sad to see you ignore the evidence. You know dam well it has been shown he lied the first time he got on the stand but we all know your camp won't admit because any lie coming out of Z's side is completely ignored.

 

What you mean is that we are not entertaining your highly erratic imagination.

 

What does it have to do with it? Well, we have a dead kid and a man who says he shot him after being attacked by him. There are no real witnesses to what hapened. A lot of the posters here seem to accept Z's word for it. So when you point out an apparent lie, it has to make a person wonder about the rest of his story. Another apparent lie is when Z says he was the one yelling for help. Two audio experts hired by the Orlando Sentinal have concluded that it was not Z's voice yelling for help. You might notice that I said "apparent lie " . I also noticed that the State Attorney at the bond hearing asked Z about his contradictory statements he made to LE the nigh of the shooting. Z denied it. The SA said it was all on tape and dropped the subject. I'm sure this is going to come up again . I also see where pictures of Z with blood on the back of his head have surfaced. Some say this proves Z is telling the truth. I say " You ever see the movie The Fight Club, where the guy sits in his bosses office and punches himself in the face while yelling for him to please stop hitting him, all wthin earshot of the receptionist. The point is , if I had just shot someone and wanted to claim sellf defense, I would make sure I had a litte blood on me. I would have made sure I needed to go to the hospital. This is the hottest topic I have seen on this forum since joining a year ago. Lot of interest. What with OJ and the Anthony girl who walked, who knows how this will turn out. WHO KNOWS? its amazing how many experts we seem to have on this forum.

 

What the lynching crowd like SkyStryker and you are doing is making things up that you cannot possibly know. The only story so far is the one that has been published so to start making silly and pointless judgements like knowing what Zimmerman was thinking after he said anything on the 911 call or what actually happened is just that, silly and pointless.

 

And, I would not be asking you to compel the defense to do anything. I would merely state my argument to the jury and let them decide the merits of my case. They may decide my arguments make sense, or they may agree with the defense. This alone is a minor point, but when you add it to other contradictions in Z's story, A pattern will develope. This is how its done.

 

Without Zimmerman directly asking Trayvon his age, there is no way he could know Trayvon's age....

he could estimate it, which he did..

 

PLEASE, read my post again, and tell me one thing that I made up. From your response to my post, I have to question whether you can read and comprehend what you read. Just give me an example of something I made up.

 

This is how desperate your camp has become. I did nothing buy compare Z's own recorded words and showed the obvious contradiction. But like I already said, you guys don't care about lies coming from Z's side and he laughably try to claim he didn't lie.