The Attempted Impeachment of Selene Bahadoor/Witness 1: What Part of Her Testimony was Zimmerman’s Defense Truly Worried About?

The highlight of today’s round of witness testimony in the Zimmerman trial appears to have been the defense’s attempted impeachment of Selene Bahadoor — a.k.a., Witness 1, or W01. Her testimony was that, on the night Trayvon was killed, she was at home cooking when she heard screaming or yelling from the ‘dog run’ behind her townhouse. W01 was to the east and slightly south of where Trayvon’s body eventually ended up, and prior to the shooting, she could see figures in the dark outside her porch window, with arms flailing. She initially thought the shouting came from children squabbling, and heard shouts of either “no” or “yo.”

On cross, Zimmerman’s counsel attempted to impeach W01 by asking why she had not previously stated, on the record, that she thought the noises of the fight had moved from south to north. The defense also attempted to show her as biased for “liking” a Justice for Trayvon status on Facebook. Although the claims of bias were easy targets for the defense to pick up, I’m left somewhat confused about the defense’s aim in attempting to impeach W01 over inconsistent (or at least previously left unspecified) testimony.

From reports of her testimony at trial, it does not seem that she said anything inconsistent with her police interviews. And her testimony could hardly come as a surprise: W01’s sister, W02, who watched the altercation from upstairs, stated in her initial interviews with police that she saw a chase that occurred from south to north outside their townhouse. (March 9, 2012 interview: Q: “The direction in which you saw these two individuals running, was it towards your house or away from your house — towards the “T” or towards the street?” A: “Towards the T.”)

So the fact that the witnesses at 2841 Retreat View Circle describe the sounds as moving from south to north isn’t some new and previously unknown revelation. It was known within two weeks of the killing (although the Sanford PD failed to immediately interview W01 and W02 as they should have, a fact that Zimmerman’s defense will now benefit from). But it is not clear precisely why Zimmerman’s defense so stridently attacked that specific portion of her testimony. Because the fact that running noises were going from south to north is not damaging to Zimmerman’s defense, and in fact supports his claim that Trayvon ambused him. Zimmerman claims he was attacked after Trayvon headed north from outside W01’s house towards the “T.” If anything, W01’s testimony is consistent with Zimmerman’s story, in that regard.

But the part of W01’s testimony that is hugely inconsistent with Zimmerman’s story is her statement that, after hearing the start of the altercation, W01 saw flailing arms from two standing figures. W01 was consistent in that part of her story at all times, and Zimmerman’s defense did not actually challenge that part of her testimony. But perhaps the defense is hoping that, by pseudo-impeaching W01’s claims regarding the direction of the fight, the jury will also disregard the rest of her testimony.

To me, though, the biggest question regarding W01’s testimony is why on earth did no one think to ask her in depositions which direction she heard the noises going in? Sheesh. It’s hardly W01’s fault if the attorneys deposing her failed to ask such basic questions.

-Susan

47 thoughts on “The Attempted Impeachment of Selene Bahadoor/Witness 1: What Part of Her Testimony was Zimmerman’s Defense Truly Worried About?

  1. W01 was to the EAST and slightly south of the two fighting figures. I think O’Mara does get her to waver on her two figures standing and flailing their arms in the darkness assertion, a little after the 21 minute mark at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reS4w2aTHV0 The reason the defense wanted to impeach her left to right motion story is that she said she heard, but could not see, two people running in that direction previous to the 2 figures standing on John Good’s lawn. That sort of supports the state theory that Zimmerman ran after and caught Martin. The reason I think the prosecution put her on instead of her sister Witness #2 is that the latter has changed her story several times so they thought it would be easier to get the left to right business in with Witness #1. Aren’t you the least bit curious why after half a dozen interviews in the past 15 months about her observations on 2/26/12, she only volunteered the left to right chase today? Like in the prior occasions, BDLR did not ask about direction.

    I am surprised, Susan, you didn’t write an article on how the wicked defense used the Frye hearing to prevent those brilliant audio scientists Owen and Reich from testifying. 🙂

    • Exactly. If Bahadoor testifies the shadow/s or sound moved left to right from her vantage point, it would mean Zimmerman was pursuing or continuing to look for Martian, traveling between the town homes toward the “T”, after 911 Dispatch told him not to do that, thus indicating he was still moving to observe Martin and potentially giving Martin concern he was being stalked.

      FWIW, I’m pro stand your ground and I hope Zimmerman was justified in protecting himself. I just hope he didn’t continue to look for Martin in the pitch dark.

      I’d like to know where Zimmerman’s car was parked in relation to where the body was found. If my recollection is correct, 10-12 seconds transpires between the time Zimmerman exits his truck and 911 tells him to stop moving to observe Martin.

      Bahadoor is obviously lying and was coached. I find it hard to believe she could make out anything from her point of view from the sliding doors to the Good’s backyard in pitch black darkness.

      • Approximately 4 minutes passed from the time that Zimmerman left his truck (7:11:42pm) to the time that the fight started (7:15:45pm). Zimmerman does not deny that he did not return to his truck after the NEN call. He was out in the dark with his flashlight walking in the ‘dog run’ area that entire time.

    • Typo fixed, thanks.

      And are they definitely not going to put W02 on the stand? I hadn’t heard anything about that, I assumed she would.

      W01 was never previously asked on the record which direction she heard the shouting/chasing going in. She says she gave that information in non-recorded interviews, but who knows. I find it very odd in deposition that the defense failed to ask her which direction the sounds were going, when her sister was already known to have stated she heard the noises going north.

      Personally, I’m not inclined to believe that either W01 or W02 could or did accurately see any direction of the fight. I also wouldn’t be surprised if there were echoes distorting direction, in that corridor. W02 and W01 heard yelps and scuffles, but there is no other evidence that the fight passed their home heading north.

      Also, BDLR?

    • I am surprised, Susan, you didn’t write an article on how the wicked defense used the Frye hearing to prevent those brilliant audio scientists Owen and Reich from testifying.

      Far as I can tell, the testimony was rightly excluded. I don’t have any familiarity with the Frye standard, but the science behind the audio analysis doesn’t seem established enough yet to me.

  2. I think Bahadoor’s testimony is sound… she basically says that she believed that she told someone of the direction of the running sounds but it was not captured in transcripts. The fact that she never was asked the direction of the sounds she heard is a more salient point in my opinion. When someone is giving a statement, different people have different communication styles in the sense some may offer explicit detail unsolicited and others speak more implicitly. Given the fact that she did not know that there would be any significance at the time of the direction of the running, it apparently did not come up when it should have. If Zimmerman was that far south of the T, it totally counters his story about his path and moreover, it explains the time gap from when TM ran because it supports the narrative that TM probably hid and resumed walking home and Zimmerman circled around and cut him off and chased him back towards the T.

  3. She repeated lied under oath. You might have missed it but She said she told the investigators that she said from left to right but it wasn’t recorded. She said repeatedly that she had said it before. She hadn’t. Asking her is the reason that you didn’t tell anyone in LEA because no one asked was example of what a lawyer should never do. He just got his own witness to contradict her earlier evidence But her lies about having no bias in the case, when evidently she did, not seeking to be in the spotlight when she did a media interview, and not signing a justice for Trayvon Martin petition, when she did HAS impeached her testimony. Now it really doesn’t matter what she said about the incident, there no reason to believe she saw anything.

    The other fact you may not have noted but every lawyer watching would is that her evidence was reviewed by the state investigator with her sister present who is listed as a witness. She was given her statements and transcripts in the same room in what is called an evidence review. This should have been disclosed to the defence and may be the basis to a challenge of the sister’s evidence coming in.

    If you can’t see that she was a bad witness for the prosecution ask yourself this: if the State were to rest it’s case now, would there be a case to answer? If you think the answer to that question is yes, you weren’t paying attention in law school. .

    • Bahadoor was barely a witness at all, and I don’t give much credit to specific details. She can confirm another witness’s presence/viewpoint, which is probably the most important part of her testimony, and she can also state that she heard scuffling at a certain time, but she doesn’t add much of anything beyond that.

      She repeated lied under oath. You might have missed it but She said she told the investigators that she said from left to right but it wasn’t recorded. She said repeatedly that she had said it before. She hadn’t.

      Where on earth is the lie? She says she has stated it before, but not during her depositions, and there is no evidence to confirm or contradict that. No one in the depositions asked her a direction, and she didn’t think to supply it. It also seems likely she has previously discussed the direction of the fight, because she spoke to her sister before being interviewed with police, and her sister stated in March 2012 that she believed the sounds went south to north.

      • She said repeatedly that she had told investigators that the movement was from left to right but it wasn’t recorded. That is a lie and their is an audio recording and transcripts to record that. BDLR made the school boy error of going back to a witness on re-direct to salvage contradictory evidence. She also lied about her bias, she said she had none then she lied about signing the petition. Add to that her lie about not wanting to be in the media.

        As for argument on the failure to mention a in evidence that the movement was left to right in earlier statements when asked specifically what she heard isn’t evidence of dishonesty, other than the fact that she lied about it, she could reasonably be expected to volunteer the evidence. After all, she claimed she did to her sister et. al, so why not at the deps? Had she admitted it was the first time and said that maybe she was wrong because it wasn’t fresh in her mind. She would have been fine.

        BDLR was an idiot for calling her IMO but if he really is that desperate, he should have addressed her bias in direct evidence. He could have adduced all that evidence and had her say that she wanted justice for Trayvon Martin. Then ask if she had any animosity to Zimmerman before the shooting (she would say no). He could then remind her that Zimmerman was on trial for murder and ask her if her bias would stop her giving true evidence. Even if the jury don’t believe her, she wouldn’t hurt his case. This is standard stuff.

        • She said repeatedly that she had told investigators that the movement was from left to right but it wasn’t recorded. That is a lie and their is an audio recording and transcripts to record that.

          No, you are fabricating this claim. I linked to all of her recorded interviews, so you can listen for yourself, but no one disagrees that there were other unrecorded interviews with her as well.

          • I believe Stefi may have been referring to this section of the cross examination:

            Thanks,
            Mark

    • The justice for Trayvon Martin page was specifically made to encourage law enforcement to open an investigation to ARREST George Zimmerman [not give him the chair, not execute him] –a goal that any parent or slightly caring person who heard about a young man being killed under questionable circumstances would want. As the title suggests, it’s a page about respecting Trayvon Martin’s life, not hating George Zimmerman or even assuming he is guilty [though I think every witness on that stand at this point has an opinion on his guilt anyway]. The idea that her liking a Facebook page make her any less credible than the white female witness who is following GZ’s brother on Twitter certainly seems to be at least partially racially motivated, but beyond that, if she were really trying to be some sort of activist witness, she’d have had more interesting things to say than “I couldn’t really see clearly, it was dark, I saw them moving this way.” These leaps of cognitive dissonance astound me. Many, many people don’t run to the police after sort of being witness to something like this. If you think you would, then there’s a cultural difference there, but that’s not evidence of a fabricator.

      Additionally, agreeing to a media interview and saying you don’t want to be in the spotlight does not make you a liar. Is she writing a book? Has she been on the talk show circuit? Can you establish some pattern other than this one scenario? Only someone with a horse in the race would suggest something that ridiculous.

  4. Comments on depositions count, what you say to your sister doesn’t. Trials are based on evidence, not gossip and opinions.
    She had been deposed two or three times, recorded, then turned up in court and told a different story. That’s the problem with making stuff up, it’s hard to keep track of what you’ve said.
    Once you have gone on Facebook playing judge, jury and executioner, screaming for some sort of vengeance, you shouldn’t expect to get away with claiming to be impartial. Too many people are absolutely unwilling to concede that Zimmerman might be telling the truth and that Trayvon got nothing but what he asked for. They do not want a fair and honest trial!

    • Spot on, as well.

      That being said, I have a problem with Zimmerman not getting back in his truck in all of this however.

      In my Florida and Utah concealed carry training it was made explicitly clear you must make every effort to avoid, if at all possible, any confrontation whatsoever. You must make every effort to retreat. It appears Zimmerman did not do that.

      I want to see evidence that Zimmerman stopped looking for Martin after 911 told him to stop moving to obsrve him. It seems to me Zimmerman acted properly up until he moved from his car. Wasn’t he supposed to be making it his business to be near the mailbox to meet the police?

      Susan says minutes transpired between the time Zimmerman left and the fight began. I’ll assume that’s accurate. If true, that is not good for Zimmerman because it means he was not in an avoidance mode. Had he heard screaming or noise that someoned needed help that would justify his moving from the car.

      I don’t think Zimmerman was intent on finding trouble. But, when you walk around with a loaded gun, you take on the responsibility of doing every thing right. If you make a mistake, you’re going to potentially kill someone be killed yourself or clusterfark the rest of your life.

          • The way I read this Trayvon came out of the dark with no warning. Zimmerman wasn’t “provoking” anything, he had every right to be where he was. There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever approached Trayvon at anything you can call close range.

  5. The state’s case just went south on Friday. I feel sorry for Martins’ parents. The state never should have charged GZ with murder 2.

    • There never has been any valid evidence that George Zimmerman’s account wasn’t accurate and honest. The case became a political event as soon as Al Sharpton decided it was exploitable. By the time he got finished many people didn’t care about justice for anyone, they just wanted to hang a honky, or in this case the closest thing available, George Zimmerman.
      No one is pleased that Trayvon Martin died, it’s a tragedy, but to ignore the fact that Trayvon’s actions played a major part in his untimely end is just simply foolish. He should have taken the chip on his shoulder home and put it to bed.

      • There is tons of evidence that Zimmerman lied about how the fight started. (Or do you still believe that Trayvon “circled” Zimmerman’s car?) There is no evidence aside from Zimmerman’s word that Trayvon initiated the confrontation. There is evidence that Trayvon had no violent intent towards Zimmerman. And Zimmerman’s own words (“these assholes always get away”) and his decision to stay out of his car for four minutes are evidence that, if Zimmerman had run into Trayvon again, Zimmerman would have tried to detain him.

        Why on earth do people find it so much more plausible that Trayvon would randomly try to murder Zimmerman, than that Zimmerman would have tried to detain Trayvon?

        It was a political event as soon as the police failed to properly investigate the shooting death of a teenager who was doing nothing more than walking home from the store.

      • I don’t think that Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman, just give him a severe beating.

        Zimmerman is not my kind of guy. It wouldn’t shock me if he would have tried to detain Martin, but there is not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

        There is circumstantial evidence that TM initiated the confrontation. His running toward the house and not getting there suggests he planned on doubling back. Also, Rachel’s not coming forward after the death suggests that she heard him say that he was going to start a fight.

        • Just how the Hell was Zimmerman supposed to know that? Is there some magic number of how many times you have to let your head bounce before you can call it serious? Legally Zimmerman could have walked 5 feet behind Martin all that neighborhood, as long as it was on public property and he didn’t touch Martin
          . My call is that Martin felt “dissed”. My take on that is get over it, there is no right to punch someone because they hurt your feelings.

          • The injuries were insignificant. If his head was getting hit on concrete, it was only on a “small” sliver of concrete, and no more than twice.

            Do you believe it is likely for teenagers to randomly commit murder because they feel “dissed”? Do you believe it is less likely that a neighborhood watch captain, who was armed with a weapon and left his car to pursue a “suspect,” would try and detain that suspect if he encountered him?

        • It wouldn’t shock me if he would have tried to detain Martin, but there is not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

          That at least I can respect. For me, it’s Zimmerman’s lies/inconsistencies that tip the balance, as the physical evidence alone is only strongly suggestive, but not at all conclusive. But I find it absurd and tragic so many people take it as a given that Trayvon is a murderous “thug,” when nothing but the word of his killer supports that claim. I think it seems obvious that Zimmerman, being armed, would’ve tried to detain a criminal if he encountered one — or does anyone really dispute that?

          Also, Rachel’s not coming forward after the death suggests that she heard him say that he was going to start a fight.

          This seems unlikely to me, because Jeantel gave a very accurate version of events prior to ever hearing any external evidence of what happened, and her story was remarkably consistent regarding her perceptions of what she heard that night. If she had intended to lie about what she heard, she surely would’ve told a story that was much more damning of Zimmerman — rather than the story which she did tell, which was utterly banal, and describes pretty much what you would have expected someone on the phone to hear, in the scenario where Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon.

          Teenagers don’t respond to feeling “dissed” by random adults by trying to murder them with their bare hands. That narrative is straight out of some suburban nightmare about thugs and gangsters — complete with the improbable use of “homie” in Trayvon’s initial assault.

          • The extent of Zimmerman’s injuries is irrelevant if Martin was showing no signs of ending the attack. It is ridiculous to keep bringing this up. The next blow or the one after that could be the one that puts you in a coma or a coffin. Only a damned fool or a hopeless liberal would lie there and allow the beating to continue.

          • I’m not sure what exactly you’re responding to, since I didn’t mention injuries in the comment above. But the extent of the injuries is relevant in that it (1) contradicts Zimmerman’s claims about what occurred during the fight, and (2) shows that Trayvon, despite having had 90 seconds to allegedly beat up Zimmerman, hadn’t succeeded in landing more than one punch, and causing two scrapes.

            Also why didn’t Zimmerman fight back? He did just lie there for 90 seconds and accept the beating, by his version of events. He did nothing to fight back, even as he was being smothered. Odd.

          • you’re speculating. Zimmerman saying these a holes always get away and staying out of his car is not evidence of violent intent. I have called many a people a holes. I had no violent intent. you a speculating. no evidence Zimmerman pursued. he merely followed. Plenty of teenagers kill people for dissing them. How many neighborhood watch captains detain “suspects” But it doesn’t matter what I believe. It matters what the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You keep going on what you believe, not evidence. Yes, some teenagers do kill, maim, or severely injure random adults with their bare hands after feeling dissed. many an adult has been turned into a vegetable by a teen who beat them with their bare hands after feeling dissed.

          • it wasn’t 90 seconds. you don’t know how many blows were landed. And as a second degree black belt and sambo I can tell you that unless you’re well trained you are completely helpless against someone mounted on top of you.

        • From what the defense lawyers have said about blood running backwards that may be used to explain the feeling of being suffocated.

          As far as real threat to life vs perceived threat I will have to go to the Jury Instruction from the FL Supreme Court. I have done my Non-Lawyerin best to put together the Justifiable use of Force Jury Instruction. pages 64-67 section 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE since the only charge brought was Murder 2 and no charges of Assault, Aggravated Assault, or Aggravated Stalking were brought there are sections that are not applicable having to due with someone starts an assault and then tries to end the fight but the victim turns into the aggressor. It does make for an interesting read if you have the time.

          http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

          —–

          My transcript of jury instruction on 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

          An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which George Zimmerman is charged if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

          Definition.
          “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

          The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to George Zimmerman while resisting: another’s attempt to murder him, or any attempt to commit aggravated assault upon him.

          In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

          In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and Trayvon Martin.

          If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

          However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

  6. I’ve missed most of this trial due to work, but one thing raised a question with me that apparently caught everyone off guard. When Jentel said she could not read the letter, did she give the name of the person that actually wrote it? I don’t really care that she can not read cursive but who actually wrote the letter seems important.

  7. The states case wasn’t about a trial, it was about a Plea Bargain.

    When the case was brought I was on the Prosecutions side until Angela Corey decided to skip the Grand Jury, we now know it was because she didn’t have as good of a case as she claimed. If this evidence so far went before a Grand Jury they would have denied her prosecution. Corey then filed Murder 2 as high as she could go without a grand jury. Corey went after Zimmerman and his wife to put pressure on him to settle or she will break his bank as she usually does (All their help from the media by editing pictures and videos to hurt Zimmerman actually helped drive people to finance his defense). Corey made it sound like she had an airtight case to use against Zimmerman to increase the pressure, that side of the table talked about the minor Dee Dee and how she heard everything and will hang Zimmerman. The problem is they actually have 19yo Rachel Jeantel telling the Jury it was Trayvon making racist comments about Zimmerman (Notice how fast Parks ran out to explaining that this was never about race), the Civil Rights Unit went in at the direction of Holder but instead found that Zimmerman wasn’t suspicious of Martin because of his race. The video and NEN call have now been presented to the Jury both of which this board have dissected over and over. I am curious to see how each side will handle the video, the Prosecution can not leave the video unanswered even though they presented it and all of the witnesses so far have been prosecution witnesses. Unless something drastically changes I do not see Zimmerman taking the stand. Most of the witnesses the Defense would want have already been presented.

    A question for Susan at this point since the Video has been presented and clearly shows that Zimmerman is claiming Self Defense does that get a Self Defense Jury Instruction?

    • I suspect so, re: the self-defense instruction. The prosecutors are going for the full-disclosure approach — showing the jury everything, and letting them decide, rather than trying to force Zimmerman to produce evidence of self-defense himself.

      The problem is they actually have 19yo Rachel Jeantel telling the Jury it was Trayvon making racist comments about Zimmerman

      He called Zimmerman both a cracker and a nigga, in a phone call with a peer. The language is racist, but it doesn’t support an inference that Trayvon’s racism is somehow relevant. Or do you think there’s anything to suggest that Trayvon would’ve found a black dude following him to be less creepy? Or, if you think Trayvon is a sociopathic murderer who would kill someone simply because they “dissed” him, do you think it’s less likely that Trayvon would’ve done the same for a black pursuer?

      But yes, they’d be idiots to call Zimmerman to the stand, they won’t do that. At this point, though, I wonder too about who all Zimmerman’s defense is going to call for their case. The state has done a thorough job of putting everyone up there.

      • At this point if the mom testifies that it is Trayvon’s Voice then I see Serino to to testify that the dad did say it wasn’t Trayvon’s voice when he first heard the 911 call. The state will probably only call the Dad to the stand in response to this. Zimmerman’s mom for counter sympathy and possibly his dad to testify it was Zimmerman. Det’s. Gilbreath and O’Steen who filed the PC Affidavit and are still considered the lead investigators especially after Gilbreath’s testimony at the bond hearing. Past that Experts to say that the evidence was mishandled causing the deterioration of the DNA that the States DNA guy already admitted to. Serino to introduce any more exculpatory evidence. Recalling Good and maybe the original ME, ME Boa was brought down from Jacksonville where she works with Corey on a regular basis. I actually see a number of people possible from Sanford PD/ME’s office. If the mom says anything to the effect that Travon was a good boy then that will open a can of worms in his background so she will be well coached not to go there.

        As far as Rachel’s statements the jury heard her talk as if Racial Comments are the norm as well as saying she thought Trayvon was in “Just another fight” The jury wont forget that and the prosecution did nothing to minimize the comments just leaving that impression out there, which is almost as bad as the “I thought he was telling the truth” debacle. Parks running out telling the media it wasn’t about race means nothing to the Jury, they didn’t hear it. Waiting until the next day and reminding them in case they forgot that comment was potentially worse than an immediate objection or even letting it slide. Strike that comment is more of a running joke.

        Insp G

        • I did hear Dr Michael Bodden say something I did not know about the Trajectory that I would like clarification on. After reading the ME’s report he said it was approx 2in from the barrel of the gun to the skin due to the spread of the stippling “2×2”, and that the shot was at an angle puncturing the left lung through the heart and puncturing the right lung. From what I am understanding “Directly front to back” means that the bullet did not hit a bone and redirect to a different trajectory instead of a straight through level front of chest to back of chest path, a straight level path front to back could not have punctured both lungs. I am hoping MOM will have some expert explain this.

          Here is the actual Medical Report if anyone can speak Doctorese.
          http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/TRAYVON-MARTIN-AUTOPSY.pdf

  8. I don’t think that George Zimmerman ever went far enough to the south that night to be south of Selene Bahadoor’s townhouse. Zimmerman halted somewhere on the walk south of the T, probably near John Good’s townhouse.

    Why the defense attorneys would want to impeach witness Bahadoor, I’ve no idea. Her testimony about hearing a running person going from left to right as she was facing west meant that the runner had been south of her townhouse and that the runner was moving rapidly northward, toward George Zimmerman’s position at that time. The running person who Selene Bahadoor heard was almost certainly Trayvon Martin, in pursuit of George Zimmerman.

    This part of Bahadoor’s testimony is a gold nugget for the defense. They’re crazy to try to have it discounted.

    • We’re almost in agreement, except that they had to discount the rest of Bahadoor’s testimony. Which is that she saw two standing figures that were fighting. So if they try and discount another part of her story, even if on flimsy grounds, then maybe the jury will discount that part.

  9. This is BIG, the ME says he doesn’t remember the day of the autopsy, he says they should have let the clothes dry and used paper bags to put the clothing in but he doesn’t remember. Flash back a few days to the DNA guy that testified that he received the clothing from the ME in plastic bags wet smelling of ammonia. Ammonia fouls (Not sure of the exact medical term) DNA samples if this ME remembered that day he would have to explain why they were wet and in plastic bags which is against procedure for a reason. I see the Defense moving to throw all DNA evidence out. This also brings all ME evidence into question due to mishandling.

  10. Pingback: Minute-by-Minute Timeline of Trayvon Martin’s Death | The View From LL2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s