Key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting changed story

Excon · May 19, 2012

Key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting changed story

A key witness to the Trayvon Martin shooting changed the story he had given Sanford, Fla., police, telling state authorities he was not sure who was screaming during the altercation with George Zimmerman, NBC Dateline confirmed Friday.

The man known as Witness #6 originally told Sanford police Zimmerman cried for help. The witness stuck to his account that he saw Martin, 17, straddling Zimmerman and pinning him to the ground before Martin was shot.

...

U.S. News - Key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting changed story

This does not bode well for Zimmerman.

Down to expert analysis?

This was also news from like Twelve hours ago.
I am surprised I am the one who first noticed it.

Goshin · May 19, 2012

Excon said:
This does not bode well for Zimmerman.

Down to expert analysis?

Hard to say. Changing your story is a good way to discredit your entire testimony.

mike2810 · May 19, 2012

Excon said:
This does not bode well for Zimmerman.

Down to expert analysis?

I didn't see where witness6 changed his statement of who was on top. ie Z was still on the bottom?

If I was on the jury, it just adds doubt to the relability of this witness. Neither good or bad for Z.

Excon · May 19, 2012

Goshin said:
Hard to say. Changing your story is a good way to discredit your entire testimony.

Yes.
I would also say that his assumption about it being the guy on the bottom who would be calling for help is spot-on.
But, just another example of why eye-witness testimony is often unreliable.
Thankfully he was of mind to notice his error and correct it.
I wouldn't want to see Zimmerman walk based on false testimony.

rocket88 · May 19, 2012

mike2810 said:
I didn't see where witness6 changed his statement of who was on top. ie Z was still on the bottom?

If I was on the jury, it just adds doubt to the relability of this witness. Neither good or bad for Z.

You didn't see the change? Or do you just not care because nothing will change your opinion?

It doesn't matter because no matter what the outcome of the trial, the public has already made up their minds and any verdict that doesn't agree with that will be a "travesty of justice." Mark it now. Once the trial is over, there will be a thread here complaining about the verdict one way or the other.

Excon · May 19, 2012

rocket88 said:
You didn't see the change? Or do you just not care because nothing will change your opinion?

His testimony will still put Zimmerman on the bottom. Why would that change his opinion?
Being on the bottom getting pummeled like it was MMA, is a clear indicator that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
Or do you not think so?

rocket88 said:
Once the trial is over, there will be a thread here complaining about the verdict one way or the other.

And I guarantee I wont be starting it.

dontworrybehappy · May 19, 2012

I don't even consider that changing the story honestly. He went from "it was Zimmerman" to "I'm not really sure who it was." The most damning part of his story he didn't change, and that is who was on top.

sharon · May 19, 2012

dontworrybehappy said:
I don't even consider that changing the story honestly. He went from "it was Zimmerman" to "I'm not really sure who it was." The most damning part of his story he didn't change, and that is who was on top.

What color was Trayvon's hoodie?

I thought that it was light gray or dark gray, but in the 7-11 video it appears to be dark red.

Mine are pink and yellow..

Excon · May 19, 2012

sharon said:
What color was Trayvon's hoodie?

I thought that it was light gray or dark gray, but in the 7-11 video it appears to be dark red.

Obviously you are not paying attention. Especially to obvious detail.

The one in the dark red, was the cashier.
:doh

http://newsone.com/2016203/trayvon-martin-7-11/

Born Free · May 19, 2012

rocket88 said:
You didn't see the change? Or do you just not care because nothing will change your opinion?

It doesn't matter because no matter what the outcome of the trial, the public has already made up their minds and any verdict that doesn't agree with that will be a "travesty of justice." Mark it now. Once the trial is over, there will be a thread here complaining about the verdict one way or the other.

There won't be a trial, when it's all laid out there is no solid evidence to convict Z of anything. What evidence there is supports Z not M.

dontworrybehappy · May 19, 2012

Man Travon had some big feet huh? Look at those things.

mike2810 · May 19, 2012

rocket88 said:
You didn't see the change? Or do you just not care because nothing will change your opinion?

It doesn't matter because no matter what the outcome of the trial, the public has already made up their minds and any verdict that doesn't agree with that will be a "travesty of justice." Mark it now. Once the trial is over, there will be a thread here complaining about the verdict one way or the other.

I was mearly pointing out like others. a witness changing their statement diminished the reliability of what they know. The change was on if Z yelled for help or not. I did not see a change on who was on top and who was pinned down. Did you?
I never made a statement of Z innocents or guilt.

I will agree that once the this is over it will be like the OJ verdict. Some will agree, some will disagree with the verdict.

I personally think it better to not to judge a person via news media. I also believe innocent till proven guilty.

Grim17 · May 19, 2012

All I got from the story and video report, was that the witness now isn't sure who is screaming, but does know it was Martin on top beating him up... So It might be that the guy who is beating the crap out of the other guy, is the one screaming for help... That makes sense... lol

There was one other thing though... Martins father said that it wasn't his son screaming... That was the first time I ever saw that bit of evidence.

TheDemSocialist · May 19, 2012

Questions are:
1)Who initiated the fight?
2)Why did Zimmerman continue to follow him (isnt that stalking someone a "confrontation)?
3)Why did Zimmerman not allow the police handle this?
4)What made Trayvonn "suspicious"?

Grim17 · May 19, 2012

The misinformation and baseless assumption just keep on rolling don't they? lmmfao

TheDemSocialist said:
Questions are:
1)Who initiated the fight?
2)Why did Zimmerman continue to follow him (isnt that stalking someone a "confrontation)?
3)Why did Zimmerman not allow the police handle this?
4)What made Trayvonn "suspicious"?

1) There are no witnesses to this, and it will be the prosecutions job to prove that it was Zimmerman who initiated the fight.
2) Who said he did? And even if he did, it is not stalking and it is not illegal.
3) Who said that he didn't?
4) Who gives a rats-ass? That is 100% irrelevant.

TheDemSocialist · May 19, 2012

Grim17 said:
The misinformation and baseless assumption just keep on rolling don't they? lmmfao

Asking questions is misinformation?

1) There are no witnesses to this, and it will be the prosecutions job to prove that it was Zimmerman who initiated the fight.

Thats why its a question

2) Who said he did? And even if he did, it is not stalking and it is not illegal.

Uhhh he continued to follow him after the police told him to stop. This is already proven

3) Who said that he didn't?

He continued to follow him...

4) Who gives a rats-ass? That is 100% irrelevant.

Actually it is. Zimmerman claimed a suspicious man was in the neighborhood. This is what set off the whole ordeal..

mike2810 · May 19, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Questions are:
1)Who initiated the fight?
2)Why did Zimmerman continue to follow him (isnt that stalking someone a "confrontation)?
3)Why did Zimmerman not allow the police handle this?
4)What made Trayvonn "suspicious"?

and this is why we should wait to see what is brought out in court. Incomplete information released and/or reported by news media only leads to speculation by the public.

imo, the more important question is can Zimmerman get a fair trial with all of the media coverage and release of partial information? Whatever the outcome some are not going to like the vedict. Can we all say OJ, OJ, OJ.

Grim17 · May 19, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Asking questions is misinformation?

No, but we'll get to that in just a second.

Uhhh he continued to follow him after the police told him to stop. This is already proven

It is? You mean when the dispatcher said that he didn't need to follow him, and he responded by saying "ok" and said he was going back to his truck?

He continued to follow him...

Really? Where is that evidence? And lets just say he did, how is that "not letting police handle it?"

Actually it is. Zimmerman claimed a suspicious man was in the neighborhood. This is what set off the whole ordeal..

So if you as a citizen call police about a suspicious person, you better be ready to prove that in a court of law, or you will be in trouble for calling tha police?

Are you saying that people need to mind there own damn business, just like they do in communist countries?

Again, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

ric27 · May 19, 2012

Goshin said:
Hard to say. Changing your story is a good way to discredit your entire testimony.

It's a given.....eyewitness statements are notorious for being incorrect.

Wiseone · May 19, 2012

Grim17 said:
No, but we'll get to that in just a second.

It is? You mean when the dispatcher said that he didn't need to follow him, and he responded by saying "ok" and said he was going back to his truck?

Really? Where is that evidence? And lets just say he did, how is that "not letting police handle it?"

So if you as a citizen call police about a suspicious person, you better be ready to prove that in a court of law, or you will be in trouble for calling tha police?

Are you saying that people need to mind there own damn business, just like they do in communist countries?

Again, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Are you really bringing up communism into this argument? I thought people minding their own business was what America was about? Jesus Christ.

The evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin is present both in the conversation Martin was having with his girlfriend right before the time of the fight were he mentioned being followed and in Zimmerman's own testimony. In fact Zmmerman's own defense lawyers have stated that following him was not a crime, therefore its a matter of public record that Zimmerman followed Martin, because

The Associated Press: Amid evidence cache in Martin case, questions nag

This kind of action can be deemed "hostile" ask yourself if you would find it hostile or unnerving to be followed by someone in the night? However that in itself does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman if he did in fact attack first, we know there was a struggle and we know that someone may have seen Martin on top of Zimmerman, apparently with the upper hand, however that does not mean Martin started the fight. But of course at the same time one doesn't lose their right to self defense by placing themselves in danger, so even if its found that Zimmerman was some kind of "glory seeker" or was otherwise acting stupidly by following this kid, it may not mean anything.

You don't know the case as well as you think dude. And here's the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call where he flat out tells the dispatcher he's following Martin.

George Zimmerman Police Call

whysoserious · May 19, 2012

Born Free said:
There won't be a trial, when it's all laid out there is no solid evidence to convict Z of anything. What evidence there is supports Z not M.

Self-defense cases put the burden of proof on the defendant. Are we in ****ing bizzarro world here?

ric27 · May 19, 2012

Oh, dear.....there seems to be infighting before, the *supposed* trial

George Zimmerman: Angela Corey needs her head examined - Orlando Sentinel

What is Corey's solution to curbing pretrial publicity? "I would say that nothing should be public until the trial comes," Corey told the forum.

I think she needs to have her head examined. She also sounds awfully defensive.

Grim17 · May 19, 2012

whysoserious said:
Self-defense cases put the burden of proof on the defendant. Are we in ****ing bizzarro world here?

I'm sorry but you're wrong, as was pointed out 4 or 5 thousand posts ago. I'm not digging up that crap again, because I have learned that the left doesn't really give a damn about facts anyway, so digging it up will not change one damned thing.

Boo Radley · May 19, 2012

Grim17 said:
The misinformation and baseless assumption just keep on rolling don't they? lmmfao

1) There are no witnesses to this, and it will be the prosecutions job to prove that it was Zimmerman who initiated the fight.
2) Who said he did? And even if he did, it is not stalking and it is not illegal.
3) Who said that he didn't?
4) Who gives a rats-ass? That is 100% irrelevant.

His following matters. At a minimum, it places moral responsibility. At a maximum, it places a legal responsibility for what followed. He is the catelyst for what happened. Is that murder 2? I wouldn't think so, but that is something for the courts to decide.

And if we do find Zimmerman started the confrontation, that provides an entirely different animal.

buck · May 19, 2012

whysoserious said:
Self-defense cases put the burden of proof on the defendant. Are we in ****ing bizzarro world here?

SYG is slightly different then typical SD claims. There is a lot of information posted here to prove that. I posted different articles from experts, AdamT posted actual court rulings, Grim posted some stuff, I think.

Key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting changed story

Excon

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

mike2810

Excon

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Excon

dontworrybehappy

sharon

Excon

Born Free

dontworrybehappy

mike2810

Grim17

Battle Ready

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Grim17

Battle Ready

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

mike2810

Grim17

Battle Ready

ric27

Wiseone

whysoserious

ric27

Grim17

Battle Ready

Boo Radley

buck