Zimmerman Witnesses Flip Flop - Outside Coercion?

This thread is not about the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman.

I just finished reading an article in the Huffington Post that outlines the testimony of the witnesses. During the original interviews, information was provided and then in the subsequent interviews, the information changed for the worse for Zimmerman.

My first thoughts were the reckless reporting by the MSM and how the entire case was blown up to make Zimmerman look guilty (whether he is or isn't is NOT THE POINT).

Is it possible that the stories changed due to what the witnesses heard and read on TV/Internet? Could they have been influenced by the popular opinion?

Could it have been threats from people or the prosecution?

Is it possible that they were paid off to keep this story alive and dividing us?

I would think the most important interviews would be the ones that took place directly after the situation went down. I don't know that, though. Can someone who is a LEO or investigator give us some insight to this?

Please DO NOT make this case about Zimmerman or Trayvon, but about the witnesses testimony and the reasons for the change.

I really want to hear everyone's opinion on the matter.

Details about the witness testimony and changes below.

Witness 2
A young woman who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, where Trayvon was shot, was interviewed twice by Sanford police and once by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."

She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who."

A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart.

That all changed when she was reinterviewed March 20 by an FDLE agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told FDLE Investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.

"I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. … I just know I saw a person out there."

Witness 12 was interviewed on March 20, saying she "didn't know which one" was on top of the other during the scuffle. Six days later, she said she was sure it was Zimmerman on top, the Sentinel reported.

Witness 6 lived close to where the incident occurred. On the night of the shooting, he told investigators that Martin was on top, "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," the paper reported. He also noted that Zimmerman was calling for help. But three weeks later, the witness said he wasn't sure who was calling for help.

Witness 13 said he spotted Zimmerman with "blood on the back of his head," he told police. Zimmerman allegedly told the witness that Martin "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him." In two interviews after that one a month later, the witness described Zimmerman's demeanor as nonchalant, "... More like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody' like it was nothing."

Article Source

reply to post by freakjive


Any lawyer will have a field day with eye-witness testimony because it doesn't take much to plant doubt into their testimony with the jury.

Take for instance what you have written about the subtle changes; from their original statements to a more recent recounting of the incident. A defense lawyer simply (for lack of a better word) has to put out the possibilities because of the immense media coverage and near instant public conviction of one side -- that these witnesses' testimonies are tainted because they are conflicted in how they should recall what happened.

Are the witnesses feeling the pressure to "ensure" justice, regardless of what they saw? Are they conflicted because it has become such a media circus? Is there are possibility that the witnesses are projecting media bias into their testimonies?

It will be interesting as time goes on in the trial to see how it is played out.

reply to post by freakjive


I just posted this in another thread

Actually eye witnesses going back on their story is quite common. What I'm about to say most of the posters who agree with you will not like but i will say it anyway. Once Obama commented on this case it put zimmerman in harms way of not receiving a fair trial. Add in the editing by CNN of the 911 tape and the liberal medias handling of the story painting zimmerman as a vigilante killer and showing a picture of 12 year old travyon instead of using a photo more age appropriate to support their bias in this case. Then there is the very real threat of the black panther party violence on the eye witnesses considering they already issued a price on zimmermans head. Funny how they got off on that voter intimidation case huh!

reply to post by digital01anarchy


Thanks, DA. Can you link me to the thread too? I'm just curious of the topic.

reply to post by freakjive


heres the link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please continue the discussion at this thread.

I have alerted a mod to have this one closed.

reply to post by freakjive


Anything some people dislike hearing and its always "they must have been payed off, or TPTB got to them!"

Its kinda sad and casts a bad light on ATS and its members.

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by freakjive

 

Anything some people dislike hearing and its always "they must have been payed off, or TPTB got to them!"

Its kinda sad and casts a bad light on ATS and its members.

That was not at all the point of this thread. You DO NOT know where I stand on the Zimmerman/Martin case. I posted the thread because of the change of tune the witnesses had.

You cherry picked "paid off". I first asked about the case being tried in the media. I then asked about popular opinion.

You obviously failed to read the OP. I asked you NOT to make this about innocence or guilt. You failed there.

I don't think it's up to you to decide what kind of light I cast on ATS and it's members, but you are welcome to your opinion.

reply to post by freakjive


how the entire case was blown up to make Zimmerman look guilty

So, care to expand on the issue then, or maybe explain yourself better next time?

And while on it why dont you enlighten us and explain just where you stand on the issue since its hard to judge youre intentions without that info. Also seems you already went into guilt with youre OP.

And yes, its up to every member here to judge just what light ATS has.. I have been here since before 2005 so i can judge the changes in this community quite well....

*Edit to add*

reply to post by Resurected


That piece of information offers you zero information about where I stand. The fact is whether Zimmerman is guilty or not (again, I'm not implying either - I don't have the facts), he has already been tried in the media and the president left his stamp on the issue as well.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter, as that is not the topic of this OP. If you want to argue about his innocence or guilt, visit this thread

Why don't you concentrate on the OP and reply accordingly? If not, you're just derailing. If you've been around since 05, you should know that by now.

When is a witness not a witness..Answer..When they start giveing multiple versions of what they saw or heard,.Even the most limited of defence atorrneys can discredit an raise reasonable doubt in a Jury if witnesses change up there testomany

reply to post by freakjive


Acualy that does tell me alot because there bad in both sides of the story on the "MSM" Only Zimmerman supporters tend to pretend everything is unfair and all against him.

reply to post by Resurected


I will not derail this thread any further.

Here is my reply to you.

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by freakjive

 

how the entire case was blown up to make Zimmerman look guilty

Ill stand by the OP in their attempt to bring to light an issue that had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Just because they made a comment upon a very well known observation; such as "how the entire case was blown up to make Zimmerman look guilty", doesn't mean they are in the tank for that conclusion.

Unless one has been living under a rock, most of the media outlets already labeled the case as such without any evidence other than hearsay notions and very general public information.

reply to post by freakjive


If you remember, when this story first broke in the media, some of the witnesses had already claimed that the very first investigators led them to make statements they didn't agree with and had left out information that they provided when first interviewed.

To say they "changed" their statements may only mean on the official copy. It's possible that their account never changed, but the police wrote down or left out what they wanted. The article provides no reason for why the official statements were changed, which just might indicate that Sanford police initially tried to cover up the all the facts. I don't believe they will release further explanation if charges are building against some members of the police department.

Also, I believe one of the witnesses changed their story within 4 days of the incident, which is before the case was in the news.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
reply to post by freakjive

 

If you remember, when this story first broke in the media, some of the witnesses had already claimed that the very first investigators led them to make statements they didn't agree with and had left out information that they provided when first interviewed.

I actually do not remember that. I will search for the stories or if you could post an example, that would be great.

To say they "changed" their statements may only mean on the official copy. It's possible that their account never changed, but the police wrote down or left out what they wanted. The article provides no reason for why the official statements were changed, which just might indicate that Sanford police initially tried to cover up the all the facts. I don't believe they will release further explanation if charges are building against some members of the police department.

Star for this line of thinking. You raise a great point.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
To say they "changed" their statements may only mean on the official copy. It's possible that their account never changed, but the police wrote down or left out what they wanted. The article provides no reason for why the official statements were changed, which just might indicate that Sanford police initially tried to cover up the all the facts. I don't believe they will release further explanation if charges are building against some members of the police department.

Also, I believe one of the witnesses changed their story within 4 days of the incident, which is before the case was in the news.

And this would add to the woes of the prosecution -- even though they are trying Mr. Zimmerman. The State's enforcement forcing witnesses to portray a story in one way or another doesn't bode well for the prosecution; even though it may seem it would.

I would like to see depositions on these before I make further comments on their validity beyond speculations though.

Originally posted by freakjive

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
reply to post by freakjive

 

If you remember, when this story first broke in the media, some of the witnesses had already claimed that the very first investigators led them to make statements they didn't agree with and had left out information that they provided when first interviewed.

I actually do not remember that. I will search for the stories or if you could post an example, that would be great.

I found this article from March 13th, I read it on another site, but it's stated similar here.

Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.

The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.

abcnews.go.com...

Some witnesses report that police who interviewed them "corrected" their testimony, with officers telling the witnesses that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who was being attacked and crying out for help. Another witness said police refused to hear her story that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, saying the police "blew us off."

www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by MaryStillToe


Unfortunately, until proven under oath in a court of law, their stories are just hearsay. It does add to the complexity of the case though and gives a huge doubt upon the State.

The defense has near grounds for mistrial at this point given the possible police mis-conduct; even though it is in contentions with Zimmerman's case.

This is going to be a huge cluster-nuck and I fully expect some LA Riot type situation if people don't receive their "justice".