Sponsored link
Monday, February 6, 2023

Sponsored link

Home Featured Video casts doubt on prosecution theory in Kate Steinle killing

Video casts doubt on prosecution theory in Kate Steinle killing

Grainy but clear evidence suggests Zarate was bending over when shot was fired

Matt Gonzalez questions Paul Endo about the video evidence. Illustration by Vicki Behringer

The jury in the trial of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate saw a video of the moment when a gun fired and killed Kate Steinle today.

The video, from a security camera on a fire station more than1,000 feet away, was grainy and low-resolution. But it appeared to show Zarate seated in a chair and bending down just before the gun discharged.

A screenshot from a security video clearly shows six people congregating around the chair that Jose Ines Garcia Zarate sat in — 29 minutes before he arrived

It also showed, fairly clearly, six people congregating for some time around that same chair on Pier 14 – some of them reaching toward the ground – just a few minutes before Zarate arrived.

There is nothing visible in the video showing Zarate pointing a gun at anyone.

That, Francisco Ugarte, one of Zarate’s attorneys said, was consistent with the defense theory that the homeless immigrant had reached down to pick up something that turned out to be a loaded Sig-Sauer gun, and the gun accidentally discharged.

The six individuals, who never walked to the end of the scenic pier, were engaged in activity that “is not consistent with tourism,” Ugarte said. He called it “remarkably coincidental” that they were right in the spot where Zarate says he found the gun about 29 minutes before he arrived.

“We believe it’s entirely likely this group discarded the weapon,” Ugarte said. “That’s consistent with his statement that he found the gun [on the pier].”

Matt Gonzalez questions Paul Endo about the video evidence. Illustration by Vicki Behringer

Ugarte said that those two key pieces of evidence “corroborate [Zarate’s] statements to the police.”

Paul Hiromi Endo, president of the San Bruno video and graphics consulting firm Think Twice Inc., was certified as an expert witness in the case.

He described how he worked with the relatively low-quality security video, which used only ten frames a second and was compressed to save storage space, to try to extract usable evidence.

That evidence, Endo said, shows that between the time the group of six people were active around the chair Zarate would sit in, only two other people passed through that area. One sat in the chair for a second or two, and the other just stopped briefly in the same region.

The video shows Steinle falling to the ground just an instant after Zarate appears to be bending down.

Since there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting, the video that the jury saw today is the closest thing to solid evidence of what happened. It appears to contradict the prosecution’s theory of the case, as promoted by retired police officer John Evans, who testified that “A human being held the firearm, pointed it in the direction of Ms. Steinle, pulled the trigger and fired the weapon, killing Ms. Steinle. This is the only way it could have happened.”

Endo made clear that even with computer enhancements, the video is so low resolution that smaller items like an arm or a gun would not be visible. But it does show that Zarate was sitting down during the entire incident, an unlikely position from which to fire a gun if your goal was to shoot somebody.

Tomorrow prosecutor Diana Garcia will cross-examine Endo.


  1. In another words, you get your nose out of joint when someone stands up to you, and refutes what you say. Right……and no, you admitted your hatred. Don’t go projecting on me.

  2. I don’t like internet trolls harassing and insulting me online.

    Seems like you are the one who is filled with hatred, hypocrite.

  3. Let’s see…. You are obsessively stalking me, because of admitted hatred, and you claim I am senile. You really are a mental case.

  4. Nope, that is not a sin…and it is not name calling when it is the truth. And no, it is NOT because I don’t like their opinions. It is because people say things that are hateful, racists, bigoted, foolish, etc.

  5. You know what else is a sin? The amount of time YOU waste online criticizing and name calling others just because you don’t like their opinions.

  6. I’m shocked, shocked….that you didn’t say that earlier. Oh well, says for more about you than about me. I hate no one. Hatred is a sin, and it is a wasted emotion.

  7. Right….. After all, you are an obsessed stalker, addicted to your hatred for me, and definitely a creep. Well, at least until you get banned from here.

  8. And I will continue being here.

    No sad little internet addict will keep me away.

    You are such a sad case and so many of us know it.

  9. And I have accurately described you just as many others have.

    Look in the mirror, why would anybody be obsessed with you?

  10. No, I accurately described you. And since then, you have obsessed over, and stalked me online to the point that you were removed from SF Examiner. And so, you followed me over her, and continue to be obsessed and are still stalking me. You are a creep, possibly a perv, and certainly a nut case.

  11. You harassed me first with your “bigot” and “racist” comments. I refuse to put up with that crap.

    “You are one truly screwed up whacko.”

    I guess it takes one to know one.

  12. You got blocked from the Examiner after harassing me for months. And then you follow me here. And you talk about addiction, and wasting time. You are one truly screwed up whacko.

  13. Seeing all the other news sites that you troll only confirms your sad internet addiction.

    Man, what a waste of time.

  14. Yes, but I have a basis for my statement. You clearly are obsessed. But please tell us, did the Examiner give you an explanation why you were booted? Or did you just discover you couldn’t post there, and all you screeds were removed?

  15. So they kicked your sorry ass of the Examiner, and now you are following me to here. You are even more of a nutcase than I previous imagined.

  16. When someone refuses to accept the facts show by evidence, and tries to come up with outlandish explanations to ignore such facts, then they clearly have some motivation other than a search for the truth.

    Your remark, “I don’t understand this whole charade. He’s obviously guilty of at least accidentally killing her. Give everyone a break, settle on Manslaughter and lock him away for the max. Hopefully there’s a gun-enhancement in this case. And maybe we can pay Mexico to hold him for the duration,” shows an unwillingness to consider that he might actually innocent.

  17. Well, some of us are just more clueless or ignorant than others. We’re trained in racism as part of our culture. So sometimes its not always evident.

    If you’d like to point out exactly what I said that you find to be “bigotry and racism”, I’d appreciate the opportunity to learn and grow.

    Otherwise, if you’re just slinging mud … have fun.

  18. Y.,

    Everyone presented a scenario. The most ludicrous was the ADA stating that the ricochet was intentional and called a ‘skip shot’ and is taught at some police departments. The experts on both sides unanimously disagreed with her.

    Defense had by far the better experts.

    Gonna be tough for this jury to convict.


  19. It is laughable to imagine someone sitting with a gun on their lap, and pulling the trigger. There is no evidence from the video the he raised the gun and fired it. And when you make remarks like “I don’t understand this whole charade. He’s obviously guilty of at least accidentally killing her. Give everyone a break, settle on Manslaughter and lock him away for the max. Hopefully there’s a gun-enhancement in this case. And maybe we can pay Mexico to hold him for the duration,” and “I guess you didn’t even read my last paragraph – this guy is a sorry loser who the public has spent way much too much money and time on already. Time to put him on a treadmill so that he can start producing and earn his keep,” that is classic racism and bigotry. This is a human being, one who has had a hard life, but who is deserving of the same treatment you would expect, and even demand.

  20. He admitted that, supposedly, during a flawed interrogation, and after being lied to by the police. It is not even a reasonable statement. And yes, I read you last paragraph. As I said, the bigotry and racism is ugly and disgusting. Do you want something more?

  21. I will accept that my mind hasn’t changed much about this character from the reports that he admitted to using the gun to try to shoot marine mammals. And I haven’t followed the story to know whether that was confirmed or not (I’m sure it was denied by Matty G, but, thats his job). I guess you didn’t even read my last paragraph – this guy is a sorry loser who the public has spent way much too much money and time on already. Time to put him on a treadmill so that he can start producing and earn his keep.

  22. Why is the suggestion that he may have fired the gun while seated “laughable”? Seriously. Now, firing it btw his legs while bending over is (and was meant to be) laughable.

    Lighten up GG.

    Care to share your understanding of ‘bigotry and racism’ in this context? Or do you just throw mud when you’re mad?

  23. A button on a shirt?

    That will set one off. Picking it up wrapped and not knowing what it is could result in the trigger being pulled through the cloth.

    Reasonable doubt.


  24. As I said, this is really weird. She posted a message about her mother at Rikers Island under the name Nora Hurley. I did not know it was her, and started to respond because she made a typo and said her mother tortured inmates. But I got a message that the message had been removed. I didn’t give it any further thought until a moment later, when I saw the post where, using her usual user name, she said the same thing. The first message was still visible in the feed, and I clicked on the user name Nora Hurley, so that person had posted one message. It was obvious that she had created a new account, posted, and then deleted it. I suspect it is part of a scam. But, scam, or not, its not going to accomplish anything. The rules here forbid posting personal information, other than real names.

  25. You are the one who posted under your real name. I didn’t realize it was you until you deleted the post, and then repeated what you said under your usual username. And then you posted again, under your real name, saying Huh? You forget, I get an email every time someone responds to me. The ironic thing is, I have no desire to know your real name. Unlike you, I am not a stalker. But you have delighted in taunting me. Keep it up, and I will file a complaint.

  26. Well, since I haven’t given his name, and do not know his name, my remark was about you, not him. So, it is not actionable. Now, you have pulled some stunts that could get you booted off of Disqus. And shoot, you made your personal information available. Nice to know if you do cross the line, but otherwise, nothing of real value. I’m not a nutcase like you are. You are just purely evil.

  27. No, your daughter does not appear to be married. I do note that you invented your son in law when you got called on your bigotry (it really is that obvious) and implied that he was Mexican. But now, he conveniently become South Asian. You are a bad joke. Oh, and I happen to enjoy watching you totally lose it when you get challenged. You are really a piece of work.

  28. Actually, there is. The video shows he did not. And no, I made no such claim, proving once again you are a liar. I said that was a possible reason he threw it in the water.

  29. I’m not interested. I don’t know if you meant to post your real name, but who cares. I don’t stalk people. And I don’t take kindly to people who try to stalk me. You’ve pushed it more than a bit. Now I know enough that if you do it again, and I think you now what I am referring to, I can just place a call to the authorities.

  30. I can see how pulling a gun through clothes can snag the trigger, but how could it have happened here? Did anyone try to present a scenario?

  31. Naw,

    Voth said he’d had 5 accidental discharges himself and cautioned all of his students (cops) that if they worked around weapons closely for any length of time they could be assured they’d see some.

    It has already been established that any number of things (clothing, buttons) could have easily discharged the trigger, set in single action at a pressure of as low as 2.9 psi.

    Bottom line is that the Prosecution is NOT proving that this guy intended to hurt anyone, ever.

    Go Giants!

    h. (enjoying the rain?)

  32. Used the name ‘Hurley’?

    Wow, maybe she really is a he as in Sgt. Hurley.

    I don’t even want to get in the middle of that kind of exchange.

    Go Giants!


  33. I wasn’t at the trial and I don’t understand what the defense is suggesting. From what you are saying, it seems like accidental shootings (per officer Voth) still require the shooter’s finger to be resting on the trigger. How would the finger be there accidentally, especially if the gun is wrapped in cloth?

  34. You know, you have to be careful. For all we know @geek__girl turns away from the keyboard and convinces herself that one of her cats is Aquamarine and starts torturing it.

  35. Nope, tutored. Still there.

    And if you’re actually posting people you think I am’s real names and continuing your stalking efforts, then you’re only proving my point about how dangerous you are.

  36. Let’s see. Your first post said your mother “tortured inmates at Rikers.” That seems a bit ore likely given your views. I noticed you removed that post, which also apparently made under your real name of Nora Hurley. Hmm, in fact that is the ONLY post you have ever made under that name. That also seems a bit odd. I think you are, as they say, decompensating.

  37. Are you accusing my father, a sitting U.S. District Court Judge, who is a very real and specific person, of being corrupt? You sure you wanna put that out there, because that’s actionable and even Disqus will release your personal information for slander like that against a U.S. District Court Judge. No shit.

  38. LOL!

    You claimed to know his state of mind, dummy. You.

    But please, keep these coming — it’s even better now that we have 280 characters, really!

  39. For someone who doesn’t give a damn what I believe, you spend a LOT of time hanging on my every word, Jennifer.

    That you think all people with darker skin are Mexican is hilarious, and shows who the real bigot is.

    And, as you well know, I wasn’t the one who originated the term “brown skin” in that back-and-forth. I played on it in my response because it’s true — my SIL is brown-skinned. He’s South Asian.

    So….I’m the ignorant bigot, but you think the only brown-skinned people are “Mexicans” and that poor Mexicans are all superstitious, to the point that, in 2017, a Mexican person who has spent years here, involved in crime, associating with other criminals, familiar with border patrol agents and police officers from several states (all of whom carry guns) is so superstitious he believes guns are “magic” and “evil” makes them go BANG.


    Thank you for showing the world what liberals are, Jennifer. Seriously. It’s just hilarious and we’re all having so much fun with your comments on Twitter.

  40. There’s no evidence he didn’t raise it. YOU claim to know that he thought the gun was magic and evil spirits made it fire!

  41. Blahblahblah…how you do go on…

    Have another drink, Jennifer. The liquor brings out your true colors…

  42. And yet, you rush in here and start spewing your usual garbage. Oh well, as I said, just keep banging on the table….but really, you should use your fist, to your head. Your brain is messed up enough as it is.

  43. It happens. It happens way too often. It happened, for example, just last month:

    Since, presumably, you are white, middle to upper income, not homeless, etc., the police would carefully collect as much evidence as possible, do the necessary calculations (the ones that the prosecution witness either didn’t bother to do, or didn’t now how to do), and based on all that, make a decision as to whether or not your story was true. Now, if you were poor, homeless, a person of color, you might not be so lucky.

  44. So you’re claiming my father and godfather were not a U.S. District Judge and a U.S. Circuit Judge? You’re asserting this as fact? Really?

    My mother was an English professor who spent a great deal of time tutoring inmates at Rikers in the years before she died, actually.

    But I’m sure you’ll make some factual claim about that, too.

    You’re so jealous of me! It’s hilarious!

  45. Yes, clearly…

    Comb through the luxury condo towers of South Beach to your heart’s content. Our armies of concierges and security guards are used to crazy people, though, so I suspect they’ll just roll their eyes and deny you entry.

  46. While it was in his lap? Really? There is no evidence that he raised it, or aimed it. Yes, I guess you think people pull triggers on guns sitting on their lap.

  47. Ah, invincible ignorance. No one with a shred of intelligence gives a damn what you believe. You change your claims repeatedly. You are desperate, and no doubt hoping that the jury is reading this. Nothing else makes sense. You used to claim he was a vicious killer, who killed her out of some sort of rage that she was young, white, attractive….yada, yada, yada. Now, suddenly he was playing with his “new toy.” Funny how you claim to have a brown skinned (whatever the Hell that is supposed to mean) son-in-law but have no knowledge of the beliefs and culture of Mexicans, especially poorer ones. Many are very superstitious. You are seriously an ignorant bigot.

  48. There is a whole Hell of a lot of difference between “makes sense” and evidence. “Makes sense” is what bigots hide behind. A lot of people, both homeless, and not, go through trash bins. There are, for example, several Chinese men and women who look for cans at SF State. You also see them downtown quite a bit. I’ve seen elderly Chinese women with huge bags full of cans tied to a stick. Funny, I have seen nothing about him being arrested in possession of pot, and I have been told that no, he was not on sleeping pills. I remember that being mentioned early on, but funny it does not seem to have come out at the trial. In fact, the only mention I can find that remotely indicates that he might have was a mention in the LA Times about him saying that during questioning, and an unsubstantiated claim on a right wing site that attributes it to Gonzalez. The rest of what I found was your repeatedly making the claim, again without substantiation.

  49. You only believe in your intense hatred. Your mind is closed like a steel trap. Nothing gets in. I have seen no one claim to know his state of mind. This case comes down to two factors. An appalling lack of evidence on the prosecution side, and a lot of reasonable doubt raised by the defense. I simply point out reasonable possibilities. I don’t claim them as fact, as you have on numerous occasions. So, please, don’t start trying to sound reasonable. We know you are not.

  50. No, not really. You are bound and determined to come up with any, and ever excuse to ignore the evidence. Your bigotry is amazing. If your father was a judge, I imagine he would a pretty horrid one. The kind who was corrupt.

  51. For someone who has claimed to be so terrified of being attacked by me, you are certainly loose with information that would be useful to someone who was actually trying to stalk you. Of course, you were lying about that. Clearly, lying is second nature for you.

  52. They have just pointed out the presence of the people. You are trying to create a straw man argument. I guess you never had a class in forensics.

  53. Garcia is desperate. Sgt. Tam just blew away the whole “laughing bit.” I always thought that sounded fake. And that from Voth is very interesting, and a bit scary. That is just one of the reasons I have never wanted a gun. I have no need for one, and would not have one.

  54. Oh, so now you are the daughter, and goddaughter of a judges. ROTFL! What next? Your mother was a ballistics expert? I mean, seriously, you are a bad joke.

  55. So lets say that I legally bought a new gun and took it down to Pier 14 to take pictures of it. While I am polishing it a bullet is discharged and someone gets hit and killed. I wait and tell the police what happened.

    Are they just going to say “Don’t do it again” and leave it at that?

  56. If I was high in pot I wouldn’t handle a gun.

    I don’t swallow pills that I find in dumpsters so I can’t speak to that possible intoxicant.

  57. Didn’t see Redmond at trial,

    Tim, today’s session featured:

    1. The Defense’s film expert finished his testimony. He’s Paul Hiromi Endo and ADA Garcia asked him how much he was making for testifying and he’s guessing it will end up being $7,500.

    He’s certainly worth it. He made the cops’ analysis of the film shot from a quarter mile … cops’ view of same video simply did not have the clarity Endo’s did.

    2. Danny Lo was next.

    He and his mother were walking along the pier and he testified that his mom wanted to avoid Zarate because he looked homeless.

    3. Sgt. Conroy Tam

    He said that he did not say that the defendant was laughing during the time he spent with him. The Prosecution has been pushing the line that this guy was a laughing terrorist on a lark only one witness has supported that and she had a large chip on her shoulder from word one and her roommate contradicted her.

    Getting the jury to believe this guy is a conniving criminal.

    When Sgt. Tam left, Judge Feng noted to the courtroom that the cops were getting younger and younger and the fact that such a young looking guy was already a sergeant.

    I caught up with the guy and relayed the comments and he laughed. He asked how old I thought he was and I said, “Not yet 30.” He’s 32.

    4. Ofcr. Franklin Ocemati SFPD

    Damned if I remember what he said but I think Matt was simply following possession of the defendant.

    5. Retired RCMP (35 years) Alan John Voth

    To me, best witness of trial so far.

    And, for a bargain of around $5,000.

    He was a Patrolman (Mountie) and with Swat and got multiple certification and became and instructor … even the Prosecution had to admit he knew what he spoke of.

    Matt: “Do you have knowledge of guns misfiring?”

    Voth: “It’s happened to me 5 times and I tell everyone I teach that if they work with guns long enough they will experience an accidental misfire.”

    Matt: “What makes a gun misfire?”

    Voth: “There are a number of reasons.

    1. Defective weapon or ammo.

    2. Operator error.

    3. Involuntary muscle reaction from …

    a. Balance disturbance.

    b. Startle response.

    c. Interlimb response (like, if you have a suspect in one hand and you’re gun in the other your gun hand might squeeze the trigger if your other hand is stressed)

    4. Loss of motor control.”

    Closed with (I’m paraphrasing but only a little) …

    “I tell all of my students that they should never point a firearm muzzle at anything or anyone you aren’t willing to shoot.”

    Go Giants!


  58. Agree, although I believe he wanted to pull the trigger as part of playing with his new toy. I don’t think he stalked Kate Steinle and singled her out, nor do I think he intended to shoot a person specifically, but I believe he intended to pull that trigger and shoot the gun to see what it was like, and he just didn’t care or think about the other people on the pier.

    The most ludicrous notion I’ve seen is the one where a huge proponent of Zarate’s innocence claims he wouldn’t have known what a gun is, much less a trigger, and would have naturally thought the gun firing was “magic” or due to “evil”.

    Really? Dude has lived a life of crime, done time, dabbled in serious drugs, has several felony counts, has observed border patrols and coyotes and such, but thinks guns are “magic” or objects possessed by “evil”?

    Next thing you know, he’s going to be painted as the innocent, naive victim of being raised in a cargo cult, or something…

  59. Not a big pot smoker I take.

    Same question — do you believe Zarate intentionally discharged the weapon?

  60. The Embarcadero south of the Ferry Building was Zarate’s “turf”. There are pictures of him hanging out on Pier 14 months before the shooting. The gun was stolen within this area.

    He spent a lot of time going through the trash bins and dumpsters in the area. The concepts that Zarate was either connected to the robbery or found the discarded gun in a dumpster/trash bin make far more sense than the notion that the thieves dumped the gun on Pier 14 in mid afternoon.

    After that, who knows. We know that he was high on marijuana and had taken pills found in a dumpster. The statements that you read in 48 Hills indicating that he would only behave in a rational matter are silly.

    I personally don’t believe that he wanted to shoot anyone, I think that he was just playing with his new toy in a manner that was recklessly indifferent to the safety of those around him.

  61. I believe Zarate either stole or found the gun elsewhere and had it on his person when he arrived at Pier 14. I believe he intended to pull the trigger and did so, subsequently killing Kate Steinle.

    I cannot “know” what he “knew”, unlike other posters here who claim to know the state of his mind and claim that he would naturally think the gun firing was some kind of “magic” or “evil” residing in the gun.

    What I do believe is that he intentionally pulled the trigger while on that pier, knowing that there were other people on the pier, and that’s enough for Murder 2.

  62. Can you give us more details of your hypothesis?

    Did Zarate know the gun was loaded?
    Did he know the gun would fire if he squeezed the trigger?

  63. Apparently he didn’t make the “likely” statement in court; he said it afterwards. But still, remind me to never believe anything that Public Defender Francisco Ungarte says.

  64. Murder 2 doesn’t require intent to kill a specific person, or even intent to kill a person. It only requires intent to fire a weapon knowing that doing so might harm a person. Murder 2 is still a fair charge.

  65. And any one of us could be one of those six — I certainly could have — Pier 14 is within blocks of my apartment, I run by it, meet up with running friends at Pier 14, I’ve walked down it with visiting family and friends, stopped at various points to chat, point out other sights in the area, take pictures, whatever.

    Gonzalez is implying that perfectly innocuous, innocent behavior is somehow suspicious.

  66. I’m thinking that the defense might have lost the jury with this one.

    For Ugarte to say that “We believe it’s entirely likely this group discarded the weapon” is just plain unseemly and unethical.

    6 unknown people visit Pier 14 during the afternoon, grainy surveillance video shows them doing nothing out of the ordinary, and this causes the Public Defender’s office to say in court that they likely stashed a stolen gun during their visit?

    The jury might be tired of having their intelligence insulted.

  67. Yes, that’s exactly what we’re being told to believe by Gonzalez.

    Even if it was ONE person trying to rid him or herself of a stolen weapon, that they would walk out onto Pier 14 on a busy afternoon and leave it in plain view (those seats hide nothing, not even a wad of spat-out chewing gum), then walk away is ludicrous.

    Why not toss it into the water from one of less-traveled, hidden corners of the Embarcadero?

    This strains credulity.

  68. Goodie. You keep watching, then. I guess you have to do SOMETHING for, ah, how did you put it?…”pleasurable” activity…

    The rest of us have other options, lol.

  69. Funny, my father and godfather were always gifted with drawings from trials they presided over, as were attorneys for both sides.

    Others may end up on display, depending on the significance of the trial.

    *turns, looks at framed drawing from very famous trial father presided over*

    But what would I know…right, all-knowing-expert-on-everything-one?

    The co-morbidities are strong in you…

  70. Nope, in significant trials they often are bought by museums and institutions. The Library of Congress has quite a collection. The Supreme Court also has quite a collection.

  71. It is up to the individual judge. Cameras are legal in all 50 states now, but a judge can say no. In this case, it does seem a bit odd.

    One of my favorite courtroom sketches is from the trial of Charles Manson. He leapt over the defense table and tried to attack the judge. A bailiff tackled him in mid-air. Thankfully, he will almost certainly never see freedom. He is truly evil incarnate.

  72. How I love watching the right wing-nuts tripping all over themselves trying to twist the facts to fit their bigoted desires. There is an old saying, “If you don’t have the facts, bang the law. If you don’t have the law, bang the facts. If you don’t have the law, or the facts, bang the table.” The wing-nuts are just a pounding on the table.

  73. I don’t think the defense has engaged in much speculation as to why, just that for whatever reason, the gun was left on the pier. Perhaps it was there for someone to pick up? Who knows? It is not unreasonable that, having realized it was a Federal agent’s gun that they might want to be rid of it.

    It is just noted that there were six people around the seat shortly before Zararte arrived. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

    The important facts, which you try to avoid, rather desperately, is that he was seated, bent over, almost immediately the gun fired, and Steinle was hit. He tossed the gun in the water, and left. That is totally consistent with the parts of his original story that he stuck to. He threw it in the water to make it stop. To him, it would have seemed like magic. This is not a person who is going to sit there are reason that there had to be a logical explanation. He would think it was some sort of evil.

  74. Wow, you are truly desperate. This is getting good. Faced with simple facts, you start coming up with absurd scenarios. What is sitting? It means he was seated on the chair, after reaching under, apparently to pick up something wrapped in a t-shirt. He was living by scavenging cans and such. To suggest that he deliberately fired the gun while it was in his lap, or while he was picking it up, or as he was unwrapping it, is laughable. His reaction was shock, and fear. He threw the gun in the water to make it stop. This is not a genius by any stretch. I imagine to him, it seemed more like magic. The chances of any juror voting for conviction is slim. The chances of all voting for conviction is pretty much infinitesimal. Your desperation is amusing. But the bigotry and racism it is CLEARLY born of is ugly and disgusting.

  75. “… an unlikely position from which to fire a gun if your goal was to shoot somebody.”

    What is, sitting, or ‘crouching down’ as the video seems to indicate? Maybe he was trying some trick shooting – between his legs! Or, maybe it was just the lazy man’s guide to target practice.

    Does the video record what was Zarate’s reaction after the gun went off? Did he rush over to help? Or run and hide like a rat?

    I don’t understand this whole charade. He’s obviously guilty of at least accidentally killing her. Give everyone a break, settle on Manslaughter and lock him away for the max. Hopefully there’s a gun-enhancement in this case. And maybe we can pay Mexico to hold him for the duration.

  76. Just to make sure that I understand the defense story correctly…

    A group of people had possession of a stolen gun. They decide that it is too incriminating to sell (it goes for about $650 from legitimate sources) and they just want to get rid of it.

    So six of them take the stolen gun to a touristy spot in mid afternoon and leave it in plain sight covered in just an old t shirt. Then the six of them hang out there “for some time” while all kinds of selfies are being taken all around them.

    Is that it?

  77. Once again, this video is evidence of nothing. It proves nothing.

    Plenty of residents use the pier — fishermen, runners, friends gathering, locals eating their takeout lunches. I’ve hung out with four other runners on that pier myself, talking after a group run. I’ve placed my bag on the ground while chatting with my brother and sister in law while on that pier, as my SIL sat. I’ve seen large family groups walking along the pier, stopping, talking, snapping pics, putting their various bags, backpacks down for a few minutes.

    Also, that six people went together to dispose of a gun by walking onto a well-traveled pier in broad daylight by placing it under one of those very small, pedestal chairs strains reason.

    The most likely story, the story that makes the most sense, the reasonable story is that Zarate, a known felon, had this gun in his possession when he arrived on that pier and he intentionally pulled the trigger.

  78. Isn’t it neat?

    First lady I watched sketching and she was, like drawing stick figures and I thought she was an eccentric but then she brought out the pallet of paints and made it into a great sketch.

    It reminds me of the portraits that a friend of mine did in pastels for tourists in New Orleans and there are good ones here in SF on the Waterfront.

    I’d prefer to watch most of it on my gifted plasma while I smoke and consume pot and drink and eat ice cream.

    I’m good to myself thataway.

    Tim says that he suspects the reason there aren’t TV connects in SF courtrooms is because the transcripts are …

    What is it that prevents live coverage in Superior Courts?

    I know that some of the judges would prefer it.

    Go Giants!


  79. It has been a while since drawings were the main way you saw what went on in the courtroom. It is kind of nostalgic.

  80. I record the ‘color’ side of the trial,

    There is a guy in front of the HOJ who uses a leaf blower to clear the sidewalk. He has a huge parrot perched on his shoulder and it is 50 years old and its name is ‘Mystic’. I asked if it talked and he said something like …

    “It only talks crap.”

    He straps the parrot to the top of a parking meter as he get’s coffee and the parrot does not mind one bit. Passing lawyers and criminals (there’s a difference?) and cops and clerks speak to the bird as they pass.

    He knows them all.

    There is a woman there every day and she used to mop the floor of the Southern Station police precinct when they were there and they let her sleep on the floor and now that they’re gone she sleeps outside.

    Her name is Ms. Jeffries.

    Does anyone know if the ladies doing the sketches in the courtroom sell their work to members of the public?

    Or, at least, copies of their work?

    Love to get some for my friends for Xmas.

    Go Giants!


Comments are closed.