Sponsored link
Friday, April 12, 2024

Sponsored link

Home Featured Cops in Zarate case never considered that they might be wrong

Cops in Zarate case never considered that they might be wrong

Testimony shows a failure to pursue any evidence that clashed with the investigators' initial version of events

Matt Gonzalez questions inspector Anthony Ravano about his interrogation of Zarate. Illustration by Vicki Behringer

The prosecution in the Jose Ines Garcia Zarate trial rested its case today after a routine presentation by the chief medical examiner.

But before that, we learned even more about the strange interrogation of Zarate, leaving even more in doubt what the jury is likely to make of this critical evidence.

Matt Gonzalez questions inspector Anthony Ravano about his interrogation of Zarate. Illustration by Vicki Behringer

Matt Gonzalez, attorney for Zarate, cross-examined Inspector Anthony Ravano, who lead the investigation into the death of Kate Steinle, and shed some light not only the cops’ techniques but on some key evidence that they didn’t bother to look for.

Ravano’s testimony made clear that he and his colleagues never considered any evidence that might corroborate Zarate’s claim that the gun fired by accident.

In fact, Gonzalez pointed out, they never pursued any sort of investigation into any theory of the incident except the one that they had decided on early: That the homeless undocumented immigrant had intentionally aimed the gun in Steinle’s direction and fired.

At one point, Ravano argued that Zarate couldn’t have found the gun on Pier 14, because if it had been there, somebody else on the busy dock would have noticed it and called the police.

When asked where Zarate might have found it, Ravano said “anywhere else” on the waterfront.

But the entire waterfront along the Embarcadero is also busy, and if the weapon was left “anywhere else,” by Ravano’s logic, someone should have called the police to report it there.

It also became clear during questioning that the police treated Zarate very differently than they treated the federal agent who left the gun loaded and ready to fire in his car. Ravano even testified that he was unable to ask the agent more than very limited questions about the gun because of restrictions imposed by Justice Dept. lawyers.

After the testimony, reporters asked Alex Bastian, a spokesperson for District Attorney George Gascon, whether the city participated in limiting the questioning of the agent. He repeatedly declined to answer.

“The police used kid gloves to accommodate that fellow officer,” Gonzalez told us after the testimony. But they put Zarate in a patrol car for four hours then interrogated him until 6am, despite the fact that he was clearly sleep-deprived and unable to offer coherent answers to their questions.

Gonzalez asked Ravano about a long list of statements Zarate made that were clearly not accurate. He said he was five or six feet from Steinle when the gun discharged; he was 90 feet away. He said he walked past the wounded woman and offered no aide; he was never near her and neve walked past her. He said that he was shooting at a seal, which was impossible since the pier is way too high and seals couldn’t reach it. When the officers asked Zarate to repeat back what they had said, he was unable to do it.

At times, he agreed to the officers’ version of events, only to make contradictory statements later.

And it appears that the officers never looked into some of those contradictions. They never asked, for example, where the seal was, or how Zarate could have fired at the seal from a seated position.

During the interrogation, the copes asked him what the gun was pointed at. After nine seconds of silence, he said “I don’t know.”

The tape of the interview shows the officers banging on the table and telling the clearly exhausted Zarate that they are “sick of him.”

But under repeated questioning, Ravano defended the interrogation, saying that he started off assuming Zarate was lying, that it was necessary to lie to the suspect to “motivate” him to talk, and that it didn’t matter that he was sleep deprived. “I was sleep-deprived too,” Ravano said.

The interrogators asked Zarate why he had killed the young woman. Zarate responded: “I don’t remember.”

I saw that as a pretty dramatic indication that Zarate was confused, disoriented, or had some sort of cognitive issues; he didn’t deny killing her (although when he was brought in for questioning he didn’t know she was dead). He didn’t say that he had not motive, or cite a motive. He said he didn’t remember.

When Zarate said he found the gun wrapped in rags or a shirt, the officers never asked him to elaborate: What color was the shirt? How heavy was the weapon?

That, it became clear, was because Ravano didn’t believe Zarate could have found the gun on the pier — even though under direct and intense questioning, he repeatedly said that was what happened.

“You say that didn’t find the gun because someone else would have found it,” Gonzalez asked. “Why couldn’t he have been the one that found it?”

Ravano said: “He could have.”

But that possibility was never part of the investigation.

The grainy video that was introduced earlier, from a fireboat 800 yards away, shows that shortly before this incident, a group of perhaps six people congregated briefly around the chair where Zarate sat. But that wasn’t a part of the investigation, Ravano said.

“I don’t know if I saw it or not,” he testified. When asked if he had made any notes in his investigative report that there were six people in that area shortly before the gun was fired, he said: “I did not.”

Ravano, prompted by prosecutor Diana Garcia, introduced what Gonzales later said was a new theory in the case: That Zarate had found the gun elsewhere, and hidden it in the pocket of the coat he was wearing. Garcia had Ravano show the jury the coat that was collected as evidence when Zarate was arrested, and the gun in question, and show how the gun could fit into one of the pockets.

However, he said he had never done a test to see if there was gunshot residue in the jacket.

“There are a lot of pockets this gun could fit in,” Gonzalez said outside the courtroom. “This is a new theory. If they really believed it, they would have tested the coat for gunshot residue.”

The defense will start its case Monday, and it’s possible that this could go to the jury the next week.


  1. Lawless San Francisco state! Illegal immigrant with 6 deportation walk free! Poor Americans! A sea lion as more protection than a white women.

  2. Patience… That person has largely disappeared, and I am waiting before I go back and gather the evidence. Also, the last time said person was posting, there was some odd behavior involving a post under what apparently is her real name. She posted a message using an account with her actual name, then quickly deleted the comment before I was able to reply. She then posted under her usual name, and repeated the comment. The new account had just been created, and only had one comment. I don’t know if this person was trying to lay some sort of trap, or what, but I declined the bait. That person has also engaged in some stalking behavior, and if it continues, I have the information I need to deal with it.

  3. a full week has passed and you’ve offered zero evidence that a fellow commentator here is a racist, or holds a bitter hatred for Mexicans, and is thoroughly dishonest. If you cannot substantiate that claim of racism – the modern day equivalent of a tarring and feathering – you should either apologize or withdraw the accusation in full.

  4. need a quote or some evidence on that please, that she is a racist and hold a bitter hatred for Mexicans.

  5. You really need to learn patience. And humility. And manners. And to stop lying, given your habit of bullying. And now off to your football party. Or not.

  6. My, you say, “Fine. I’ll wait. I won’t hold my breath, though,” and then you start back with this crap. I would say you are the lunatic. You can’t even handle being told to wait.

  7. Nah, we won’t “get back” to anything. Sorry you have nothing better to do but try to bully people on teh interwebz, bur I have a football party to go to.

  8. Anything to deflect from the fact you have made slanderous, dishonest claims about me and can’t prove them like you said you could.

    Keep running….run away, fly! Run, run, run…!

    You’re a lunatic and a coward.

  9. I wouldn’t want you to. That would be quite dangerous after three minutes. I find you quite despicable but I do not wish you harm, even if you have tried fo falsely claim I have.

  10. ROTFL! Yes, we will get back to your ability to converse with those who disagree with you. And seriously? Given your incredible intolerance and attacks on people who disagree with you, it is clear that you would gladly suppress dissent.

    All in good time. It’s about time you learn some patience.

  11. No, I am a conservative.

    You now claim I would make holding certain political positions a crime. Prove that statement. What position, and where have I said that holding that position should be a crime?

    Where is your proof that I hate Mexicans?
    Where is your proof that I hate the poor?
    Where is your proof that I defend all men accused of rape, repeatedly?
    Where is your proof that I am a white supremacist?

    You said you’d already posted this proof and would be happy to post it again. Post it again.

    Where is your proof for your slanderous, defamatory, bigoted, hateful claims?

  12. No, you are a right wing-nut. And no, not a crime, though you are the sort who would make holding certain political positions a crime. I don’t care if you unlock your Disqus profile or not. It is obvious to me that you are beyond help. You are a bitter person, who cannot abide anyone disagreeing with you. You are the one who needs help, but you cannot see that.

  13. Where is your proof I hate Mexicans?

    His comment is typical mindless trolling.

    You have said umpteen times, as fact, that I hate Mexicans.

    You’ve been asked to substantiate this many times. Where is your proof? Cite your source.

    I have not defended rape. In a discussion about false accusations, I said that women who falsely accuse damage the credibility of women who have been raped. This is “defending rape” in your diseased, damaged, sick mind? You’re quite demonstrably deeply disturbed, incredibly stupid, or both. You are utterly incapable of nuanced discussion, of listening to anyone else, hearing them out, understanding anything outside of your incredibly narrow, prejudiced worldview.

    You have not shown at all, ever, that I have told a single lie. I have not. Again, where is your proof? You insist you have it — you make slanderous, defamatory claims over and over and swear up, down and under that you have proof, yet you refuse to show it. Why?

    Once again, where is your proof I am a white supremacist?
    Where is your proof I hate the poor?
    Where is your proof I hate Mexicans?

    You said yesterday you’d be happy to post it all again.

    Go ahead. Post this proof of yours that your slanderous, bigoted, hateful claims are true. We’re all waiting. Go ahead and post your proof.

  14. Yes. I’m a conservative. Not a secret. Not a crime. Doesn’t make me a white supremacist (hilarious, what with the flak I get for being a NR NeverTrumper). Is not proof I hate the poor. Is not proof I hate Mexicans.

    You’re not going to goad me into unlocking my Disqus profile. Anyone is free to read those sites and they’ll no doubt run across my comments, in context, in response to specific pieces, while they’re browsing.

    You’re mentally ill. You’re a sick person. A troubled, disturbed, mentally ill, incompetent person. Get help.

  15. All still there, but hidden from sight. Uh huh. And I notice you tend to hang out on right wing publications, with the exception of The Atlantic.

    And how would I attack you in real life? Since I have no idea who you are, or any details about you? As I said, you started making stuff up in your panic over my exposing your history.

  16. Yes, another who observed that you hate Mexicans. And you suddenly claim a “brown” son-in-law. Yeah….sure.

    And you have defended rape. That is what saying women have made false accusations means. No, I am not claiming that no woman has ever made a false accusation of rape. But those who focus on that are defending rapists. It is a way of hand waving away legitimate clams.

    Yes, I have implied that he does not exist. I have shown that you lie without even thinking about it. I have noticed that you seem to repeatedly make statements that are rather convenient. And you seem to play rather loosely with facts.

    Now please, carry out your threat to report me to the police. I will enjoy suing you for harassment.

  17. Yes, your entire Disqus history proves you’re a mentally disturbed creature who calls EVERYONE who does not agree with you the same series of names — racist, bigot, hater, white supremacist, white nationalist, and then insists they’re all liars because they don’t march in goosestep with you.

    It’s ALL you do. You have NOTHING ELSE in the way of commentary.

    You are utterly unable to discuss any topic without devolving into name-calling the second someone speaks from a different perspective or holds a different viewpoint.

    You’re crazy as hell.

  18. You know, you are actually hilarious. Of course, you have no way of knowing whether I lied or not. I admitted I made a mistake, and admitted my mistake when shown evidence. You continue to proclaim, as fact, that I lied. So, by your own words, you are the liar.

    And you act as though you don’t spew filthy slander at anyone who dares disagree with you. And that you don’t call people liars.

    I provided proof when I examined your history. I’ll be glad to post it yet again.

  19. Where’s your proof I’m a white nationalist?

    Where’s your proof I hate the poor?

    Where’s your proof I hate Mexicans?

    You stated all three of those things as fact.

    Where’s your proof?

  20. I have seen you repeatedly claim, as fact, things you could not know for sure. So you have lied. And you do exactly that when people point out your lies. When someone points out where I am wrong, I admit it. And if I wronged someone, I apologize. You just continue screeching nasty names and slanderous filth.

  21. Nope.

    You. Lied.

    And when your, uh, “mistake” was pointed out to you, you attacked that poster, as is your wont, and called their entire post a work of fiction.

    Turns out they were right.

    And funny how you insist you’re “just mistaken”, but spew filthy slander at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion than you, calling them liars?

    Where’s your proof I’m a white nationalist? Where’s your proof I hate the poor? Where’s your proof I hate Mexicans?

    You stated all three of those accusations as fact, and have yet to cite your sources and substantiate them.

    Go ahead…where’s your proof, you lying scum?

  22. Given that you have done just that many times, you just admitted that you are a liar. I misinterpreted some photos. In fact one of the photos that was at the top of one of the articles makes it look as though there is not a gap between that bottom railing as well. That is called being mistaken. You have repeatedly stated as fact things you could not know. By your own claim, that is lying.

  23. I know exactly who and what Geek Girl is. Believe me. And I know who she’s targeted and why. This is public knowledge.

  24. No, my words are still there. No “expertise” claimed. It’s common sense, but you’re mentally ill and dangerously disturbed, so you have no sense at all, common or otherwise. You have a twisted, diseased brain and a twisted, diseased soul.

  25. No, you lied about me defending Brock Turner, and you lied about Pier 14. LYING is when you claim as fact things that are not true. Then, when people point out your lies, you just screech nasty names and slanderous filth at them.

    You’re sick in the head.

    You’re dangerously disturbed.

  26. Yep, all still there, and my history is not horribly embarrassing. I stand my my words, in the context they were written. Where I post is open to all — anyone is welcome to read at PJMedia, Daily Wire, The Federalist, Instapundit, The Hill, The Atlantic, National Review, et al., and read my comments any time they like. I welcome them.

    No, the danger, you sick, disordered creature, is that you would take your sick, twisted hate and obsession and attempt to attack me in real life, which I believe more and more with every mentally disturbed post you make.

  27. Why would I mention a son in law? Why? The ONLY reason I mentioned it in this context is because of a particular phrase that d-bag used.

    You LIED about me defending Brock Turner. Bald-faced LIED. And when called on it over and over and over, you doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on your lie, all while YOU KNEW YOU HAD LIED. You did not “misspeak”. You flat-out LIED, and it was a hideous, hateful, deliberately slanderous lie on your part.

    You already made it clear that you don’t think my son in law is a POC. That was your intent.

    And now you imply that he doesn’t exist (gonna be some HUGE news to my daughter and their kids!).

    You can’t stop LYING and making deceitful, ugly, hate-filled accusations for two minutes.

  28. ROTFL! No, though I have studied many of the subjects you mention. Well, not medicine, not sociology, and not urban planning. As to the rest, you went a bit overboard. I was a year old when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, and a bit too your to have marched with MLK. As to the rest, nope. And you said WWI twice, and skipped WWII. I had a couple of cousins who fought in Vietnam. But, on the other hand, I don’t lie and claim I have JD either.

  29. I would not have known that I was mistaken. I don’t know if you are too stupid to realize I made a mistake, too hateful to realize it, or you do realize and are trying to use it to your advantage. But your M.O. has been revealed.

  30. I am merely observing that after not even mentioning a “son-in-law” you suddenly claim one who just happens, quite conveniently, to be a “brown person.” No claim, just an observation. I admitted I misspoke about the Stanford rapist. I cannot prove that you ever defended him. And I apologized for that. Of course, you are not going to let it go. You have defended rape, and have accused women of lying about rape. That says plenty about you. And I made a mistake based on photos I looked at. I realized my mistake when you fellow nut case went down and took a photo from an angle I had not seen.

    And how could I state facts about your son-in-law when I don’t know that he actually exists?

  31. Again, I posted items from your history. The history that you now have hidden, because, well, it is horribly embarrassing.

    Yes, I imagine that you did shut your Disqus profile, because the danger was that your words would come back to haunt you.

  32. ROTFL! That’s rather funny, as you know you are lying through your teeth. And I don’t try to bully anyone. It would be nice if my words caused you to engage in some introspection and realize that you really are a bigot, a hateful person, and are not the sterling example of superiority that you imagine yourself to be.
    And you have been caught in numerous lies, and have made claims that are almost certainly also lie. Whenever you are exposed, by me, and by others, this is your response. Vile, hateful insults, accusations of mental illness, lying, and slander. That is not standing up. That is abuse. And the actions of a narcissist.

  33. Well, you claimed the expertise. Not me. I simply commented on why you said. Again, as I pointed out, they would have wanted the gun found, to keep the feds from making a huge effort to find them. Having an agent’s gun floating around would not be acceptable. Having it found would be a priority.

    And you are mean-spirited bigot who regularly spews hatred and ignorance.

  34. You need to accept that Geek Girl Jennifer has multiple graduate degrees and a proven track record of success in disciplines including law, medicine, computer science, criminal justice, biology, sociology, philosophy, English, urban planning (I know I left a few out). She has also been present at nearly every possible event, historical and otherwise. She marched with MLK, she sat in the back of the bus with Rosa Parks, she hung out with Gandhi, attended the Last Supper and reported from the trenches during WWI, WWI and Vietnam. Aquamarine, you dare to question her authority?

  35. I thought he said he was shooting at sea lions, which I believe are a protected species. Why isn’t PETA out protesting?

  36. Are you going to state as fact something about my son in law now?

    Go ahead.

    Every other claim you’ve made about me, about countless others, about various facts of this case is a demonstrable lie. Do tell me how you never claimed I defended the Stanford rapist…and tell us all how Pier 14 is not open at the edges…go ahead, state some “facts” about my son in law.

  37. No, you wouldn’t have admitted your “error” (aka LIE) at all.

    That’s your M.O. — lie, lie, lie some more, slander and abuse anyone who points out your lies, and then, once you’re proven to be a liar, you go off the rails and slander and lie about the person who proved you to be wrong.

    You. Are. Crazy.

  38. No, NONE Of your “mistakes” are honest. They are all your deliberate LIES, which, in your crazy mind, you think you can bully people into accepting as facts if you just berate them and slander them long enough.

    You lie over and over and over again and then you slander and abuse anyone who stands up to your insane rantings. You’ve been “exposed”, to use your term. Your own words expose you, reveal you to be deeply mentally ill and an abusive, dishonest, lying, slanderous thug.

  39. You’re ALWAYS “mistaken”. You state as fact your baseless “opinions” and then immediately claim everyone is a liar and a bigot and a hater and a Nazi and God only knows what else when they correct you.

    You have NEVER BEEN TO THE CRIME SCENE but you insist you know all, you’re always right about everything related to the crime scene. You’re such a freaking dishonest lunatic, it’s disgusting.

    You seriously outdo Trump on the crazy narcissism and dishonesty. You make him look sane. That’s how bad you are.

  40. I know. I live blocks away. I run by it every day.

    That’s why the whole “bench” thing raised such questions for me, and why Gonzalez’s use of “bench” points to his attempt to deceive.

  41. So now you’re accusing me of being an experienced criminal because it’s clear as day to anyone but the terminally mentally ill that if you want to get rid of a guy, tossing it in the water rather than setting it out in the open inches from the water is the better choice…?

    You’re a sick, disturbed creature HowardJennifer. You need to be locked up.

  42. It was a deliberate lie and you know it.

    STILL waiting for your proof I’m a white supremacist and that I hate Mexicans.

    Go ahead — where’s your proof? Cite your sources, you lying, slanderous, calumnous POS.

    You have proven nothing and I shut my Disqus profile because you are a clear, demonstrable danger, which you prove with your ever crazy word, Jennifer.

  43. I stand corrected, and I apologize for making that claim.

    A quick spin through your Disqus profile is very enlightening. You consistent strategy is engage in vile, and vulgar insults, including ageism, racism, hatred, and as to the proof you are demanding, I provided it. You freaked out when went through your history. You, on the other hand, are just a very rude and hateful person.

  44. No, you are the one who made up a complete work of fiction. I made an honest mistake. I looked at a number of pictures of the pier on Yelp. Some showed a raised area of concrete, but I was careful enough to look for ones where there was seating. It appeared that the railing was against the pier. I would have admitted my error politely, but you had to be a complete jerk about it. Mainly because the lack of a casing does raise doubt. As does the lack of significant gun shot residue. One alone, MIGHT not be significant, but the two together is a bit much. So, you and your ilk have to make them seem meaningless. The simple fact is, taken together, the facts of the case make it highly unreasonable to claim he deliberately shot anyone. But you cannot bring yourself to even consider that it might be a bizarre and tragic accident, and not proof that Mexicans are muderous.

  45. No, I made an honest mistake. And I called you a lying piece of excrement because you jumped to a conclusion, and chose to make a very insult remark when I made an mistake. Even in one of your photos, it appears that the lower railing is next to the pier. I find it amusing that you are so obsessed you made a trip down there to prove me wrong. Pretty much confirms my suspicions about you.

  46. “She” doesn’t. “She” spent one sick night stalking me through my Disqus account and spewing crazy comments at me (just spin through “HER” profile, yikes!). Then “she” started pulling pieces of comments out, added “her” own words, and said that was “proof” I was a Nazi, racist, white supremacist, and defended Brock Turner. Oh, and that I hate Mexicans, which is hilarious given that I have never even used the word “Mexicans” in any comment ever unless I was quoting “her” claims about how I hate them.

    “She’ll” swear that this is false, that “she” has “proof”, but “she’ll” never provide it.

    Just like “she” never provided proof of “her” deceitful claim I defended Brock Turner, or “her” claim I’m a white supremacist, or “her” claim that I hate Mexicans.

    But, hey, check out “her” lunatic Disqus history for yourself.

  47. http://disq.us/p/1nfgfqd

    Your typo, but you said it, Jennifer.

    You do realize a quick spin through your Disqus profile reveals you to be a freaking psychopath, right…?

    I mean, seriously, you poor sad old fart, what WOULD you do if you didn’t spend all day every day calling people racists, haters and bigots.

    Oh, and still waiting for your “proof” I”m a white supremacist and that I have a bitter hatred for all Mexicans.

    You’re repulsive. Look in the mirror, you disgusting old creep. You’re disgusting.

  48. OK. You make things up and then when people call you on it THEY are lying pieces of excrement. I have no sympathy for you because you don’t get the help that you obviously need.

  49. @geek__girl – Hey, I’m not the one who completely made up the part about their being little guard rails on Pier 14. That would be you. You make up whatever you want…and then wonder why people laugh at you.

  50. I called certain people left wing nutbags, not nutmegs. Just as I would refer to certain people on the right as wack jobs. Doing so does not peg my political views. However, you consistently resort to petty name calling if someone has an opinion different than your own, or if the facts don’t support your agenda. You consistently appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner. Keep on digging that hole for yourself.

  51. In a sense, I did. Before you locked it, her profile was available. She is quite the prolific poster on Disqus. I provided a post where I quoted from some of her many posts. She freaked out, and accused me of being a threat to her, and claimed she had to alert her “security force.” I reposted it recently, if you want to look for it. Or, if you ask, I will repost it again. Quite an interesting bit of information. Her tactics are consistent. Refute something she says, and she loses it and pretty much uses the same insults, over and over.

  52. ROTFL! This is another of this kook’s tactics. She gets backed into a corner, and she “suddenly” remembers that her son-in-law is a brown person. Too funny….

  53. Really? You’re not on the right, but you call people left wing nutmegs? No, my statements are not unfounded, and you want to talk about name calling, that is Aquamarine’s stock in trade. I realize it is fashionable to deny being right wing, but seriously, own up to it.

  54. Nope, I have never said that all Mexicans are automatically innocent. Typical of you, but not surprising. Oh, and I am still waiting for you to prove what you claimed yesterday. Please show where I said you defended the Stanford Rapist….instead of saying you probably did based on your defense of other rapists.

  55. No, you lying piece of excrement. I was going to admit that I was mistaken, having looked at a number of photos posted on Yelp of the area. Even one of your two photos give the appearance that the bottom rail is against the pier. Of course, you have a desperate need to hand wave off any evidence that does not fit you bigoted conclusion. You don’t want to allow reasonable doubt. The prosecution did not really make a prima facie case. But I doubt the judge will allow a motion to dismiss, though legally he should. But you go right on lying, and BSing.

  56. So, you have plenty of experience with disposing of hot guns? Interesting. I didn’t know you were such an experience criminal. to really surprising.

    And both the lack of gun residue, and the lack of a casing raise reasonable doubt. Of course, an unreasonable kook like yourself would be obsessed with explaining it away. And it is not a short guardrail.

  57. I’m not on the right but it’s really amazing to see how left wing nutbags respond with unfounded accusations and name calling when they don’t like a question or disagree with a position. Exactly why we are where we are today. Asking them to grow up is expecting way too much.

  58. Frankly I didn’t tell you what to do or what not to do. I asked a question and you responded with an irrelevant potty mouth attack. Oh, and you hurt my feelings.

  59. I don’t think the judge has ruled on that request yet.

    Yes, there was expert testimony speaking to the nature of the weapon and the likelihood of accidental firing.

  60. They did? All I read was about powder residue and trajectory. Did the defense get permission to let the jury try the gun for themselves?

  61. That’s the thing — between what the defense purports to have happened, and what the prosecution purports to have happened, the prosecutions’ version is just more believable, and the defense’s strains reason.

  62. He found the gun during his constant dumpster diving along the Embarcadero. High on marijuana and on pills that he found while dumpster diving, he took his new toy to Pier 14 to play with. You know the rest.

    OR…other people stole a valuable gun. Not wanting to sell it because it could incriminate them, they left it in plain sight in an area where hundreds of pictures are taken every hour. Inches from the murky Bay.

    The second one requires some serious suspension of belief. But maybe that’s just me.

  63. I run by Pier 14 every day. That the defense refers to those seats as “benches” is an indication they have every intention of not being truthful. Also, if Zarate fired from a sitting position, the casing could easily jump a short guardrail, and the truth is any number of people on the pier after the shooting could have kicked the shell over the edge.

    The lack of a shell casing proves nothing. Not one thing, just as the ricochet proves nothing, just as the lack of X amount of gun residue proves nothing.

    Of course, we’re not to be concerned at all, nope, about the lack of the tshirt…

    Pier 14 is about the worst place to dispose of a hot weapon — there are tons of garbage bins and dumpsters nearby that are better, and if someone REALLY wanted to dispose of the weapon, why stop at the chair on the pier and not drop it a foot or two further into the water?

  64. I have not ever said anything at all critical of Mexicans, I’ve never referred to Zarate’s ethnicity, only that he has repeatedly entered this country illegally, which is an _action_, and has nothing to do with his skin color.

    But that…person…also claims she has proved I am a white supremacist.

    Because if you believe that Zarate is guilty of Murder 2, you are de facto a racist who harbors a bitter hatred of all Mexicans and you’re a white supremacist.

    Hilariously, the subtext is that all Mexicans are automatically innocent because of their ethnicity, which is a racist statement.

  65. the railings have one piece along the bottom that would block it from
    going off. The wind would have literally had to pick the cartridge up,
    and blow it over that bottom part

    I just went down there. That “bottom part” that @geek__girl was babbling about so emphatically believes to exist really doesn’t. Here is a picture; the concrete just ends and there is about a 2 inch clearance before the first railing.

    Here is what the seats look like to people walking along the pier. There is no cover whatsoever. Despite what Tim writes, it is not just another bad place on the waterfront to dispose of a hot gun, it is the worst possible place to do so.

  66. You must follow Aquamarine elsewhere because I don’t see anything here that makes it “abundantly clear that she is a racist, and holds a bitter hatred for Mexicans.”

  67. Then why did you reply or not block me. The fact that you responded without answering the question, cupcake, proves that you do care. Sounds like Aquamarine’s opinion of you is spot on.

  68. And no one cares about your ugly racist rhetoric spewed all over these comboxes. Take to some liberal site where you can wallow in your racist, bigoted filth to your heart’s content.

  69. Seriously — this is all the liberals have left — screaming “Racist!” if someone dares to disagree.

    They like to throw around “white supremacist” and “Nazi” a lot, too.

    In the meantime, they continue to practice the soft racism of low expectations with every word they write.

  70. Oh, grow up. My son in law is a “brown person”. Don’t be ridiculous. Zarate’s actions are what I take issue with, not his skin color. Don’t be so racist. Sheesh.

  71. Oh, well, it’s SF. What do you expect? Of COURSE they’re in the bag for Zarate, and of course Steinle is only so much collateral damage.

  72. Because gun experts have testified that it’s highly unlikely that particular gun would have gone off accidentally. The various stories Zarate has concocted regarding an accidental fire are less reasonable to believe than that the gun was in his hand and he pulled the trigger.

  73. And, of course, the prosecution has proven neither. Intent to pull the trigger is also necessary for manslaughter. Hung jury or acquittal are the most likely outcomes. At least one juror will hold out for acquittal, or very possibly, one will hold out for conviction.

  74. Because this kook has repeatedly made it abundantly clear that she is a racist, and holds a bitter hatred for Mexicans. She has no honesty at all.

  75. First off, you are engaging, and is the prosehhcution, in pure and desperate speculation. This is not remotely evidence. It is imagination. And Pier 14 has a set of railings, which would largely block any views of seals if someone were seated. Oh, and the lack of a casing was dismissed by the claim that it could have been blown off the pier. That is highly unlikely since the railings have one piece along the bottom that would block it from going off. The wind would have literally had to pick the cartridge up, and blow it over that bottom part.

  76. It doesn’t. That is the prosecution’s biggest headache. They have not really made a prima facie case. The judge, if he followed proper procedure, who dismiss the case now. Of course he won’t.

  77. ROTFL! Everything that this kook has posted is direct evidence of being untrustworthy. Nut case here has an agenda, and is determined to argue that Zarate is guilty, regardless of how absurd a claim is required.

  78. Given the nature of the interrogation, no. The interrogation should be tossed. It was coercive. It should have been obvious to the police that he was incapable, at least temporarily, of giving accurate answers. But they didn’t care. They just wanted to trick him into saying stuff they could use.

  79. When asked where Zarate might have found it, Ravano said “anywhere else” on the waterfront.

    But the entire waterfront along the Embarcadero is also busy, and if the weapon was left “anywhere else,” by Ravano’s logic, someone should have called the police to report it there.

    This is a key point and Tim’s logic is highly flawed (as it is when he suggests that it is impossible to shoot at a seal unless it jumps up on the pier first).

    There are plenty of dark nooks and crannies between the Ferry Building and the ballpark. Meanwhile Pier 14 is a destination for tourists and locals, without any cover whatsoever. Leaving the gun on pier 14 is leaving it in plain sight. You might as well leave it on the steps of the police station. The only place as remotely stupid for gun stashing is the Ferry Building.

    And what about dumpsters and trash bins? Zarate went through them regularly.

  80. “he was never near her and neve walked past her.”

    Neve? Chuck Nevius was on the scene? He needs to be questioned [note to Tim: quick spell check required if no copy editor on hand]

  81. According to Matt Gonzalez the only part that we should be believe is when he said “But officer, I just found the gun here and it went off by itself.” Because why would he make something like that up?

    On a related note, where are the toxicology reports on Zarate?

  82. Everything that has fallen out of his mouth is direct evidence that he is untrustworthy and not credible. His credibility is on trial, actually — do we believe the fairytale he and Gonzalez are spinning, or do we look at what reasonably, probably happened on the pier that day?

    Regardless of how he obtained the gun, Zarate was in possession of the gun that day and the gun evidence supports an intentional trigger pull.

  83. No, intent to pull the trigger is important for Murder 2. Intent to kill Kate Steinle specifically would be evidence supporting Murder 1.

  84. It is interesting how different people pick and choose which parts of Zarate’s interrogation they believe. Some take it as a matter of fact that he found the gun wrapped in clothing on the pier, but that story comes from the same mouth that says he was born in 1863. Is anything that this guy said reliable evidence of anything, whether damning or exculpatory?

  85. Actually you are the one off point. The issue is whether it was a accident or did he intend to kill the woman . There is a difference in the law.

  86. This is another distraction tactic. How Zarate got the gun is not the point. That he shot Kate Steinle is. the point. That an innocent young woman is dead because of a repeat offender’s actions and because of the mind-so-open-brain-fell-out liberal lunacy of this city is the point.

    Zarate shot the gun and killed Kate Steinle. So far, the prosecution has stayed on point while the defense distracts, deflects and addresses anything and everything but the matter at hand — that Zarate killed Kate Steinle.

Comments are closed.