George Zimmerman Bond Hearing (Transcript)
Aired April 20, 2012 – 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
GLADYS ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN’S MOTHER (via telephone): This program started like three years ago and when the problem started, you have to be committed to the program so you have go to classes. And you have to sign like a contract that you will keep on with the program.
With the program was — he sign up for the program, I’m sorry, and because of the economy, it closed after nine months. But George continued with the program. He continued that had whole year and after that year, he kept on with the program.
This was his second year going up to the city of Orlando and taking care of two kids because his wife also mentored. So the couple mentored these two kids for the last two years.
MARK O’MARA, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN’S ATTORNEY: And how old were those children?
ZIMMERMAN: I believe one is — the boy is 14 and I had met them, it they are very nice kids. George tried his best to give help love and teach them, you know — teach them good manners.
They are very lovely kids and they love so much George was George used to go to see them every two weeks, twice a month he would go and see them.
And I had begged George not to go. I’m sorry, I had told my son please don’t go, it’s too dangerous. And he said, mom, if I don’t go, they don’t have nobody.
O’MARA: Why were you concerned about George’s safety in that program?
ZIMMERMAN: Because it was a very dangerous place where he goes to.
O’MARA: A very bad what?
ZIMMERMAN: Dangerous place.
O’MARA: Bad news place?
ZIMMERMAN: Dangerous place. O’MARA: I’m sorry, my apologies.
ZIMMERMAN: That’s OK.
O’MARA: What was the racial background of the two children that he mentored?
ZIMMERMAN: African-American, sir.
O’MARA: Nothing further, your honor.
BERNARDO DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Good morning.
ZIMMERMAN: Good morning, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: I’m Bernardo De La Rionda on behalf of the state of Florida. I just have a few quick questions hopefully. You mentioned that he –
ZIMMERMAN: He tries to protect people.
DE LA RIONDA: And you are aware about this prior case in which he was arrested, right?
ZIMMERMAN: I didn’t hear.
DE LA RIONDA: I turned my back. I apologize. You were aware of the prior case in which he was arrested, were you not?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, that was in 2005.
DE LA RIONDA: And that was in 2005, have you talked to your son about that?
DE LA RIONDA: When you say your son from an authority standpoint when law enforcement tells him something, he’ll abide by it?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, he will.
DE LA RIONDA: Why didn’t he heave when the police officer told him to leave?
ZIMMERMAN: George told me he didn’t identify himself as a police officer.
DE LA RIONDA: Did he claim that he was defending himself, too?
ZIMMERMAN: I’m sorry?
DE LA RIONDA: Did he say regarding that arrest incident in 2005 regarding those officers, did he say he, Mr. Zimmerman, say, your son, say he was defending himself?
ZIMMERMAN: I don’t recall that, sir. DE LA RIONDA: And you don’t have any knowledge of the web site, do you in terms of the money?
ZIMMERMAN: No. I know I have seen the letter, but I don’t have any answers to it.
DE LA RIONDA: OK, thank you very much.
ZIMMERMAN: You’re welcome.
O’MARA: Thank you, your honor, for the questions. If I can have –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can she be excused?
O’MARA: Yes, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, ma’am. You’re excused.
(END LIVE FEED)
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: As Mark O’Mara conferred with his client, we’re going to break away again for one minute. We’ll be right back.
COSTELLO: I’m Carol Costello. You’re watching CNN. It’s 10:05 Eastern Time. What you’re watching, these are live events happening from Sanford, Florida in courtroom number five.
And this is a bond hearing for George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara asking the judge to set bond so his client can be released until his criminal trial begins.
We heard a lot from Zimmerman’s family. We heard from his mother, Gladys, his father, Robert. We also heard from his wife. None of them seemed to have much money on hand.
Although Gladys Zimmerman that she does have a house. Let’s listen to what Zimmerman’s attorney is talking about right now.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
O’MARA: I would call –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t mean to be rude. It’s your motion, however you think it’s best for you.
O’MARA: Thank you, your honor. I would call either Investigator Osteen or Investigator Dale Gilbreath.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please state your full name for the record and spell your last name.
DALE GILBREATH, INVESTIGATOR, STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: Dale Gilbreath.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: State your occupation, if you will.
GILBREATH: An investigator with the state attorney’s office in Fourth Judicial Circuit.
O’MARA: And you are one of the investigators on this case?
O’MARA: I would you consider yourself one of the lead investigators? How do you determine your involvement, how do you define your involvement?
GILBREATH: I’m one of the two investigators working on the case with the state attorney’s office.
O’MARA: And I note in the file that you brought up with you, did you bring a file with you?
GILBREATH: No, sir, I brought a copy of –
O’MARA: Sorry. Do you have anything other than what you just identify, the probable cause affidavit?
GILBREATH: No reports or anything, no.
O’MARA: Did you bring any supporting documentation with you to the courtroom on his bond motion at all?
GILBREATH: No, I was not planning on testifying.
O’MARA: OK, but you do have the probable cause affidavit?
GILBREATH: I have a copy of it.
O’MARA: I would like to spend a few minutes going over a copy of that, if I might. I’ll try to make it easy for us with the court’s indulgence to use blow up of that. You can see that?
O’MARA: Take a moment just to compare the two to make sure that that is in fact the affidavit that you are reviewing. May I examine the witness from the exhibit?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whatever you’re most comfortable with.
GILBREATH: It appears to be, yes.
O’MARA: At any time during this examination you’re concerned that the probable cause affidavit that you have is different than the one I’m examining from, let me know. Starts out with two or three paragraphs preparatory telling the magistrate, the judge, who you are and what you do, correct?
O’MARA: And you and a fellow officer tell us that you’re officer, you’re investigator, correct?
O’MARA: For 35 years.
O’MARA: And you’ve taken sworn statements. Up here, there is no evidence, correct? This is an evidence for the court to consider beyond what your background is?
O’MARA: I’ll call it substantive evidence, meaning by that evidence that relates to the facts of the case, OK?
O’MARA: Great. So this — we’re not considering this evidence. Would we? Substantive evidence?
O’MARA: And the statements would be evidence, but this is not evidence, correct? The fact that you took them isn’t substantive evidence, is it?
GILBREATH: The fact that they were taken, no.
O’MARA: And you say Trayvon Martin was temporarily residing at the retreat at Twin Lakes, Sanford, Florida. Certainly a piece of evidence substantive tells us where Trayvon Martin was living, correct?
O’MARA: Doesn’t give us any indication as to what happened, though, correct, with the eventual event that led to Trayvon’s death, correct. Just tells us where he’s living.
O’MARA: That he had an ice tea and a bag of Skittles, that he walked back into the gated community, he was on his way back when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. If I say to you the word peanut butter, what do you think?
O’MARA: OK, Moe, Larry and –
O’MARA: OK, when I say the word profiling, what do you think?
GILBREATH: I believe you’re applying a predetermined thought pattern to a set of circumstances.
O’MARA: No other word comes to mind when I say profiled to you?
GILBREATH: I gave you my answer, sir.
O’MARA: OK, I appreciate the answer. Did you consider it to be some specific type of profiling?
O’MARA: Why did you use the word profiling rather than noticed, observed, saw, or anything besides the very precise word profiled? And by the way, was that your word?
GILBREATH: I don’t recall. This was a collaborative answer — excuse me, collaborative document.
O’MARA: Between who in addition to the two people who signed it as being true?
GILBREATH: Detective Osteen and I prepared the majority of this. It was reviewed by our supervisor. There were several mistakes in it. They were corrected.
O’MARA: Do you know whose word profiling was?
GILBREATH: No, I do not.
O’MARA: When you swore that to be true, what did you mean that to indicate?
GILBREATH: That Zimmerman saw Martin, formed an idea in his head and contacted the Sanford Police Department with no facts.
O’MARA: With no facts. And of course, you have available to you, Mr. Zimmerman’s statements, correct?
GILBREATH: I did.
O’MARA: Again, you say that he lived in a gated community, driving his vehicle. Zimmerman felt that Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Did you get that from your conversations with Mr. Zimmerman?
GILBREATH: I have never spoken to him.
O’MARA: From his sworn statements?
GILBREATH: From his non-emergency dispatch.
O’MARA: And you state that Mr. Zimmerman perceived that Trayvon Martin was acting suspicious, correct. Do his statements give us any insight into that? GILBREATH: When talking to the police dispatcher, I believe he indicated that he was suspicious.
O’MARA: Did he use that word?
GILBREATH: Without reviewing it right now and reviewing all the stuff we have, I can’t honestly say if he used that word during the dispatch tape.
O’MARA: And they informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer, correct?
GILBREATH: I believe so.
O’MARA: And you would have gotten that from the 911 tape that has been heard?
GILBREATH: The non-emergency tape, yes.
O’MARA: Non-emergency, sorry. Now, I’m curious, you then say Zimmerman made reference to people that he felt had committed and gotten away with things in the neighborhood. What was that that gave you that indication?
GILBREATH: I think he said the second line that you — before you stopped, part of that is included in that statement.
O’MARA: How many different statements existed, the non- emergency, the emergency, how many phone calls existed of George Zimmerman’s communication with law enforcement?
GILBREATH: On this evening?
GILBREATH: I believe one.
O’MARA: Was it your determination or decision to put it in quotes that by suggesting it’s his words precisely, and the only quotes you use, two phrases that use expletives. Was that an affirmative decision by you?
GILBREATH: I don’t disagree with it, but I’m not one that person quotation marks on.
O’MARA: Why did you do it? But you swore to it.
GILBREATH: True, but I did not type it.
O’MARA: OK, did someone else make the decision to put in two quotes and the only two quotes that suggest that my client was using expletives?
GILBREATH: I don’t know the decision making process, but as far as I recall, those were the quotes. O’MARA: Absolutely true. I’m not denying that her quotes. I’m just asking everything else that he did, why those didn’t make into quotes for a probable cause affidavit. And since you signed it I’m curious if you can give us any insight.
GILBREATH: I didn’t put them in quotes. I can’t give you insight into that.
O’MARA: But that is your signature.
GILBREATH: I agree with that.
O’MARA: And you swear this is true.
GILBREATH: I don’t believe those statements are untrue.
O’MARA: But you don’t know who made the decision to solely put those two phrases in quotes?
O’MARA: Who was in this decision making process?
GILBREATH: As I said, Detective Osteen and myself and Bernie.
O’MARA: During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described what was happening. How did you get that information?
GILBREATH: From Detective Osteen.
O’MARA: How did he get it?
GILBREATH: He interviewed the witness.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ll object to that witness’ name being disclosed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize.
(END LIVE FEED)
COSTELLO: All right, this is Carol Costello. We’re going to step away again. This is the bond hearing for George Zimmerman. We’ll be back in 2 minutes.
COSTELLO: I’m Carol Costello. This is CNN. You’re listening to the live court proceedings in Sanford, Florida of George Zimmerman’s bond hearing.
Mark O’Mara, Zimmerman’s attorney is now questioning on the stand under oath the state attorney’s investigator. His name is Dale Gilbreath.
And what they’re looking at is the probable cause affidavit that was used to convince a judge to get an arrest warrant for George Zimmerman. It’s why he’s in custody right now and Mr. O’Mara is tearing it apart or trying to. Let’s listen.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
GILBREATH: Zimmerman on this affidavit, and there again, we’re adding to what she had said, but Zimmerman said he didn’t want him to get away because they always get away.
O’MARA: This thing you falsely accused who was going to commit a crime, who made that determination?
GILBREATH: It was the three of us throughout the process. I don’t recall who did which sentence in this. This was not everybody sitting in one room. This was proof given to somebody else and then prepared.
O’MARA: When the responding officer said he disregarded the responding officer, how do you know he was trying on return to his home?
GILBREATH: Because the location he was found in is probably — and I don’t have exact measurements, it’s in the path to the back door of where he was staying. He came from there. I’m assuming he was going back there.
O’MARA: When you say he disregarded the police dispatcher, in your investigation, did he at that point hang up the phone and just do whatever he was going to do, did he disconnect with dispatch?
GILBREATH: He did disconnect with dispatch –
O’MARA: I want to keep it on the time line. You said that Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher? Continue to follow Martin who is trying to return to him home. Did he disconnect at that point?
GILBREATH: No, he did not. He stayed on the phone for a short period of time. Yes, he did.
O’MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?
GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.
O’MARA: Which means they met. I’m just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.
GILBREATH: Well, it’s not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty words. O’MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?
GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.
O’MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.
GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.
O’MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?
GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don’t know how much more explanation you wish.
O’MARA: Anything you have, but you don’t have any, do you?
GILBREATH: I think I’ve answered the question.
O’MARA: A struggle ensued. We have witnesses concerning struggling, correct? You have evidence of that, right?
O’MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon’s mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin’s voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?
GILBREATH: Did I?
O’MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?
GILBREATH: The “Orlando Sentinel” had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.
O’MARA: Is that part of your investigation?
O’MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?
O’MARA: Did Trayvon Martin’s mom identify that voice as soon as she heard it or were there concerns as to the identity of that voice?
GILBREATH: I did not speak with her.
(END LIVE FEED)
COSTELLO: OK, we’re going to take another two-minute break and we’ll be back on the other side with more from Sanford, Florida.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COSTELLO: Before we return to the court proceedings in Sanford, Florida, there’s a bit of breaking news to pass along to you there’s been a civilian plane crash in Islamabad, Pakistan.
We don’t know much more than that, this is what Reuters is reporting. We don’t know who was on board that plane, but of course, it’s always possible there could be people on board that plane from other countries.
But we understand this is a big plane and it crashed in Islamabad where there is bad weather right now. When we know more about this, of course, we’ll pass it along to you.
Now we want to return to the court proceedings in Sanford, Florida. As you know, the Zimmerman’s bond hearing is taking place. On the stand right now is one of the investigators for the state attorney’s office.
His name is Dale Gilbreath. They’re talking about the probable cause affidavit that was used to convince the judge to issue an arrest warrant for George Zimmerman. You’re looking at George Zimmerman’s attorney there. Let’s go back to testimony.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
O’MARA: How about the dad’s ability to identify whether or not that was Trayvon’s voice?
O’MARA: You’re not aware of any inquiries made to Trayvon’s dad as to whether or not he could identify that voice as being his son’s?
O’MARA: Nothing further, your honor.
DE LA RIONDA: Mr. O’Mara doesn’t mind, may I use that same –
O’MARA: All yours. Sorry for the blue marks.
DE LA RIONDA: Mr. O’Mara talked about the first two prepared affidavits being irrelevant. How long were you a detective in homicide?
GILBREATH: Twenty years.
DE LA RIONDA: And how about Detective Osteen?
GILBREATH: I believe directly in homicide for maybe six.
DE LA RIONDA: So you have a total of how many years experience if you combine them both?
GILBREATH: As detectives alone –
DE LA RIONDA: Just say police officers.
GILBREATH: Police officers, probably in excess of 65, 70 years.
DE LA RIONDA: And in terms of Mr. O’Mara asking you about the third paragraph or fourth paragraph in that affidavit, you along with Investigator Osteen had an opportunity to review other document, photographs, other stuff?
DE LA RIONDA: Isn’t it true, sir, that at least one witness described first chasing another person in the back of that –
DE LA RIONDA: Now you were asked about this paragraph regarding on Sunday, it starts on Sunday, February 26th, that Mr. Martin was temporarily living at the residence there. He had a right to be there in that gated community did he not?
GILBREATH: Yes sir.
DE LA RIONDA: I mean, he wasn’t — is there any evidence at all that he was breaking into anybody’s house or committing any type of crime sir?
DE LA RIONDA: So he had the perfect right to be walking down the street that evening did he not?
GILBREATH: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And isn’t it a fact to prove that and you have verified that he actually went to that 7-Eleven store and bought some Skittles and a can of tea? Did he not?
DE LA RIONDA: And there’s a video of that?
DE LA RIONDA: And he paid for it. He didn’t steal or anything. Is that correct?
DE LA RIONDA: Ok and then he ended up walking back to the community? Is that correct?
DE LA RIONDA: Now the defendant, Mr. Zimmerman, also lived in that community, correct?
DE LA RIONDA: And isn’t it true that and we’re relying on the 911 reporting where he said he called up the police and he stated we’ve had some breakings in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy he referred to Mr. Martin, did he not?
DE LA RIONDA: And the defendant Mr. Zimmerman stated that it’s raining and so in his mind, he assumed or he profiled Mr. Martin as a criminal? Correct?
GILBREATH: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Because Mr. Zimmerman perceived that Martin was acting suspicious in his mind, in Mr. Zimmerman’s mind. Correct?
DE LA RIONDA: And did — isn’t the 911 reporting, the police dispatcher informed him that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer?
DE LA RIONDA: But isn’t it true that Mr. Zimmerman did not wait for that officer?
DE LA RIONDA: In fact he continued to follow or to pursue Mr. Martin, isn’t that true?
GILBREATH: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And during your reporting there was mention of two fork marks, those are actually the language, the words that Mr. Zimmerman used to describe Mr. Martin or the people he felt were breaking in to those houses? Correct?
GILBREATH: Yes sir.
DE LA RIONDA: And I’m not going to repeat the word, for the purpose of the record but they should speak for themselves.
Isn’t it true also that you verified through Detective Osteen, Investigator Osteen that Mr. Martin was on the phone with a lady who was out of town?
DE LA RIONDA: Ok and in fact that young lady provided a sworn statement but also you verified through phone records that that conversation actually took place? GILBREATH: Yes.
DE LA RIONDA: Ok and what is described in that next paragraph exactly that Mr. Martin was describing to the lady that he was scared because he was being followed throughout the complex by an unknown male and did not know why this man, Mr. Zimmerman was following him?
GILBREATH: To my understanding, yes.
DE LA RIONDA: Obviously Mr. Martin didn’t refer to the male as Mr. Zimmerman.
GILBREATH: Yes and also this came from Osteen informing me of this. We had split work and had done different things.
DE LA RIONDA: And isn’t it true that the route that Mr. Martin was going to or I should say the 17-year-old young man was going to was in the direct — he was going directly to where he was living, where he’s — where he was staying, is that correct?
DE LA RIONDA: Ok and isn’t it true that this young man was unarmed?
DE LA RIONDA: And isn’t it true that Mr. Zimmerman was armed?
DE LA RIONDA: And isn’t that true that in fact in the recording to the 911 or to the non-emergency operator or dispatcher that you can actually tell when Mr. Zimmerman leaves the vehicle and continues to pursue Mr. Martin?
DE LA RIONDA: And isn’t it true that the dispatcher or operator tells Mr. Zimmerman, hold on — that’s my word — but said something to the effect of you don’t need to be following him, and he still continues to follow him?
DE LA RIONDA: And sir, you were asked about the next paragraph here that Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued and you were asked a lot about what “confronted” means. If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and was going home and somebody comes up to him and starts accusing him (inaudible), wouldn’t you consider that a confrontation?
DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn’t turn around and start — he was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman’s the one that approached Mr. Martin, correct?
O’MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he’s talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence.
LESTER: What’s the objection?
O’MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in evidence to the witness.
DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word “confronted” sir?
GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the facts that we had along with the witness statements of the argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from several witnesses.
DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding his own business? Is that correct?
O’MARA: Again, your honor, we point to — and this is not in evidence and he cannot present it that way to the witness.
DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Martin, the route he was taking was towards his house, correct?
DE LA RIONDA: And he was unarmed?
(END LIVE FEED)
COSTELLO: Carol Costello again, I apologize we’re going to have to take a two minute break. We’ll be back as fast as we can. Please stay with us.
COSTELLO: Let’s head back to Sanford, Florida. State’s attorney investigator Dale Gilbreath is talking about how long possibly George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. Let’s listen.
O’MARA: — or who they were or anything.
GILBREATH: They — I cannot identify who they were, but it was at the same time frame this occurred.
O’MARA: Ok. Besides that any other evidence to support your conclusion that Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow?
GILBREATH: Other than his call and that witness?
GILBREATH: And the fact that where it ended up. No.
O’MARA: Well you do have some other evidence don’t you? We had Zimmerman’s statement, don’t you?
GILBREATH: We have Mr. Zimmerman’s statements, we have the shell casings and we had Mr. Martin’s body.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right and let’s — let’s talk about Mr. Zimmerman’s statements to you and to law enforcement that night.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We object as to hearsay?
O’MARA: It’s not part of the proper cause of affidavit and on purpose was left out. I apologize. I’m not trying to make an argument that –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overruled.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
GILBREATH: Do I know?
O’MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
O’MARA: Mr. Zimmerman gave a statement that very night, did he not?
O’MARA: And within that statement, he said that he saw somebody, he was concerned, he got out of his car, he called non-emergency, and began to go towards the person. Is that paraphrasing but pretty correct so far?
GILBREATH: Paraphrasing, yes.
O’MARA: Ok. And if I go wrong, stop me and let me know where I wrong.
GILBREATH: I will.
O’MARA: And then he said he went back around and went towards his car, did he not? In his statement.
GILBREATH: In his statement after he was told not to talk by the dispatcher.
O’MARA: Got you.
GILBREATH: He says that he continued on to find a street sign and then went back to his car.
O’MARA: So he said before he knew anyone else saw or did not see what had happened, he gave a statement saying he went back to his car, correct?
GILBREATH: No. Towards his car.
O’MARA: Sorry. You’re right. He went towards his car. Seemingly away from Mr. Martin, though, correct?
GILBREATH: That part of the interview I don’t recall because I don’t know that he indicated where Martin was.
O’MARA: Did he tell you who started the fight? Did he give you any indication what happened?
O’MARA: Not you. I apologize. Are you aware of any information of the statements that he had given regarding that?
O’MARA: Ok. And in those statements that you’re aware of and were part of your foundation for coming up with this probable cause affidavit, what did he tell the officers?
GILBREATH: That he was the victim in this, and that it was Martin that confronted him and assaulted him.
O’MARA: When did he say that? When was the first in relation to when the event happened. When did he say that?
GILBREATH: The initial interview that was conducted at Sanford Police Department.
O’MARA: How long after the event?
GILBREATH: Within an hour and a half.
O’MARA: Had if been disclosed before he made that statement any information about what other evidence the police had gathered regarding this investigation?
GILBREATH: You mean to him? O’MARA: Yes.
GILBREATH: Not to my knowledge.
O’MARA: Would it be safe to assume then in giving him, and him giving that statement to the police wherein he said one, “I turned around and went back to my car”; and two, that he did not start the fight and that he was assaulted by Mr. Martin. When he gave that statement, did he have any indication that there were or were not half a dozen witnesses who saw the whole thing?
GILBREATH: I have no knowledge of that. I don’t know what –
O’MARA: any insight you can give us as to –
GILBREATH: I have no indication what he picked up from other officers at the scene. I know from reading reports there were witnesses gathered around while he was still at the scene. And this was prior to their having statements taken from them. So I don’t know what he picked up from overheard conversations.
O’MARA: That statement that he had given you — sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event?
GILBREATH: Which two?
O’MARA: That he turned back to his car. We’ll start with that one.
GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.
O’MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?
GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?
O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?
GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?
GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.
O’MARA: Ok. Now, you know as one of the chief investigators that is the primary focus in this case, is it not?
GILBREATH: There are many focuses in this case.
O’MARA: That would be considered the primary, would it not, in your opinion, 35 years experience?
GILBREATH: I don’t know that it’s primary. It’s one of the concerns, yes.
O’MARA: Nothing further.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Gilbreath, I didn’t know we were going to be trying the case, I’m going to add up — I apologize. I want to add some questions to — you had reviewed or other members of the team had reviewed his interviews, is that not true.
GILBREATH: That is –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave — he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn’t it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?
GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn’t it true that there is evidence that indicates that’s not true?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the defendant — did he not state or claim that the victim in this case, Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so that he couldn’t breathe?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that’s when he was able to get free and grab the gun. Or I’m sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun, did he not claim that too at some point. climb that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But — and I’m going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn’t you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself?
COSTELLO: All right. We’re going to have to jump away. We’ll be back just as soon as we can. We apologize again. We’ll be right back.
COSTELLO: Back live to the bond hearing in Sanford, Florida. Mark O’Mara, who is George Zimmerman’s attorney is doing another redirect of the state’s attorney investigator. They’re talking about what injuries George Zimmerman had to his head that night. Let’s listen.
GILBREATH: Managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found.
O’MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don’t they?
Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.
O’MARA: Could that be cement?
GILBREATH: Could be.
O’MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn’t consistent?
GILBREATH: I said it was.
O’MARA: Ok. Have you ever had your nose broken?
O’MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.
O’MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?
GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven’t seen any medical records to indicate that.
O’MARA: Have you asked him for them?
GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.
O’MARA: Do you want a copy of them?
O’MARA: I’ll give them to the state. It’s a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven’t had them yet, I don’t want to cross you on them.
Nothing further, thank you, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t have any further questions, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes sir. Anything further, Mr. O’Mara?
O’MARA: No thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: — anything further?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, your honor.
O’MARA: My client wants on make a statement to the court, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please have a seat (inaudible). Please state your full name for the record, spell your last name.
George Zimmerman, charged with Trayvon martin’s MURDER: George Michael Zimmerman, Z-i-m-m-e-r-m-a-n.
O’MARA: I think an inquiry is probably appropriate by the court just (inaudible) that he is a criminal defendant with a second-degree murder charge –
O’MARA: We want to make sure that (inaudible). State your name.
ZIMMERMAN: George Michael Zimmerman
O’MARA: You advised me that you wanted to make a short statement, is that correct?
I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.
O’MARA: Nothing further, your honor. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m sorry, sir, you’re not really addressing that to the court. You’re doing it here to the victim’s family, is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: They are here in the court, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I understand. But I thought you were going to address your honor, Judge Lester, not — so that’s really addressed to the family and where the media happens to be, correct, Mr. Zimmerman?
ZIMMERMAN: No, to the mother and the father.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you’ve done or their loss?
ZIMMERMAN: No sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never stated that, did you?
ZIMMERMAN: I don’t remember what I said. I believe I did say that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told that to the police?
ZIMMERMAN: In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You did.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you’re sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I’m fairly certain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so which officer did you tell that to? You made five statements I believe, total.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir, I’m sorry, all the names run together.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you remember if it was a male or a female?
ZIMMERMAN: There were both males and females.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the time you made that statement that you were sorry?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And let me make sure the record’s clear, you stated exactly what to those detectives?
ZIMMERMAN: I don’t remember exactly what — verbatim.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you’re saying you expressed concern for the loss of Mr. Martin, or that you had shot Mr. Martin, that you actually felt sorry for him.
ZIMMERMAN: I felt sorry that they lost their child, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so you told detectives that you wanted them to convey that to the parents?
ZIMMERMAN: I don’t know if they were detectives or not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Officers, I apologize.
ZIMMERMAN: I didn’t know if they were going to convey it or not. I just made the statement.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. And then you said that you called them or you left a message for them to tell them that?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you wait 50 something days to tell them — that is, the parents?
ZIMMERMAN: I don’t understand the question, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you wait so long to tell Mr. Martin and the victim’s mother, the father and mother, why did you wait so long to tell them?
ZIMMERMAN: I was told not to communicate with them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. So even through your attorney, you didn’t ask to do it right away? Your former attorneys or anything.
ZIMMERMAN: I did ask them to express that to them. And they said that they were going to.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested — I’m sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?
ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then the following morning. Is that correct?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?
ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn’t it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started “I don’t remember”?
O’MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.
JUDGE LESTER: We’ll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn’t it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn’t believe it, that you would say “I don’t remember”?
JUDGE LESTER: I’m going to grant his motion at this time.
O’MARA: Thank you, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?
ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Now, sir, you had a phone at some point and you agreed to turn over that phone to the police so they could make a copy of what was in there, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in that phone did you receive or send text messages sir.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to a reverend?
O’MARA: Objection, your honor. Outside the scope.
JUDGE LESTER: Sustained.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to Mr. Martin, the father of the victim?
JUDGE LESTER: Sustained. You’re getting a little bit far away.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize your honor. My question is he was asked in terms of apology to the family and I’d like to be able to address that if I could. JUDGE LESTER: I think you can classify that whether or not he asked the apology. I don’t want to get into other areas.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE LESTER: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question is, Mr. Zimmerman, do you recall sending a message to someone, an e-mail, about referring to the victim’s father?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. I don’t.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And just to anticipate, I guess — is the court ruling that I can’t ask him about the statements he made to the police in terms of his limited testimony? I just want to — before I get that out don’t want to be trying to ask the question and objections being made.
JUDGE LESTER: You’ve already anticipated and you can anticipate my ruling.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, your honor. I have no further questions, your honor.
JUDGE LESTER: Thank you. You may step down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No further presentation.
JUDGE LESTER: The state anything further?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No sir.
JUDGE LESTER: Argument.
O’MARA: Yes, your honor. Though there is a presumption against bond initially with a felony like this; in order to maintain that the state would have to convince that you to a standard that I don’t think they attempted to reach today –
(END LIVE FEED)
Emptysuit On Twitter
Click On Links:
Trayvon Martin And The Hoodie
George Zimmerman’s Police Report
Obama’s Racist Video ‘African Americans For Obama’
Obama And The Koran
Obama Kool Aid Drinkers
Child Dies In House Fire, Aunt Concerned About Her Food Stamps
Obama And The Muslim Brotherhood, Cairo 2009
Barack And Michelle Obama Radical Cartoon
Barack Obama A Muslim
The House Negro And The Field Negro