Since my first two articles on the Trayvon Martin case (available in the SMM Trayvon Martin Case archive), the most momentous development has been the bond hearing. I will not go into detail on every aspect of that hearing as it has received blanket coverage elsewhere. Among the most competent voices covering this hearing (and the rest of the Martin case) are Just One Minute and my former Confederate Yankee (now closed to all but archival access) co-blogger, Bob Owens. By all means, take a moment to take the links and review their work on the hearing. I’ll focus instead on the testimony of the hearing and what it reveals, particularly about the prosecution’s case and the competence of its team.
On April 20, 2012, A bond hearing was held for George Zimmerman. Bond was set at $150,000 dollars. In our criminal justice system, it is presumed that bond will be granted for most defendants. It is denied, or set so high as to make release unlikely, only in the most serious cases—like murder—and only where the defendant (the accused) is a substantial flight risk. That Zimmerman was granted bail is unusual. That it was so relatively low is doubly unusual. Murder suspects rarely get bond. That Zimmerman was granted bond unmistakably indicates that the judge did not consider him to be a flight risk and that he was unimpressed by the evidence presented at the hearing. He had good reason to be unimpressed.
Bond hearings are usually quick and unremarkable. The prosecution presents evidence—which is almost always convincing—that it has a solid case. In this case, the transcript of the hearing reinforces my concerns from my last update: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 2: The Prosecutor and the Affidavit. Those interested in the transcript should take the link to the CNN “rush” transcript of the case which is interrupted from time to time by commercial breaks. I’ll mention only the most telling points, and those most damaging to the prosecution:
The hearing, which was much longer and more revealing of the prosecution’s case than the overwhelming majority of such hearings, was remarkable in many ways. Among the most interesting was the performance of Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara. O’Mara revealed himself to be a highly confident and competent lawyer, a man who knew the case forward and backward. On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Bernardo De La Rionda, appeared to be unprepared neophytes.
Revealing Testimony:
* O’Mara established that Dale Gilbreath, one of the two special prosecutor’s investigators on the case, brought no materials—other than a copy of the affidavit—to the hearing. He was utterly unprepared to testify.
* Gilbreath continually dodged and weaved rather than directly answering O’Mara’s questions. He was utterly unable—or unwilling—to tell the court who put certain phrases in quotations in the affidavit or why. This is never a good sign when done by a police officer/prosecution witness.
* Gilbreath testified that he had no idea who put the word “profiled” in the affidavit, despite also testifying that only he and his fellow investigator T.C. Osteen wrote the affidavit, which he called a “collaborative document,” which was reviewed by “…our supervisor. There were several mistakes in it. They were corrected.” He also avoided defining the term.
* Gilbreath admitted that he did not interview Zimmerman. [This means that everything he and his fellow investigator knew about Zimmerman’s statements came from the materials collected by the Sanford Police. He has no new evidence in that part of the case.]
* Gilbreath could not justify the use of the word “confrontation” in the affidavit and looked very evasive in avoiding it.
* Gilbreath admitted he had no idea whose voice was calling for help, and admitted that he did not speak with Martin’s mother and that he could not confirm whether anyone spoke with Martin’s father about that or whether he could identify Martin’s voice on the various tapes.
* De La Rionda’s examination of Gilbreath amounted to nothing more than having Gilbreath reaffirm the assertions in the affidavit.
* Gilbreath admitted he had no idea who started the fight.
* Gilbreath admitted that he had no evidence that conflicted with—no evidence to prove otherwise–Zimmerman’s statement that he was walking back to his truck before being assaulted by Martin.
* Gilbreath admitted that he had no evidence that conflicted with—no evidence to prove otherwise–Zimmerman’s statement that Martin assaulted him first.
* Gilbreath admitted that Zimmerman’s injuries were consistent with his account of the attack. Amazingly, he also admitted he hadn’t read Zimmerman’s medical records from that night and that he had never requested a copy of those records.
O’MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?
GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven’t seen any medical records to indicate that.
O’MARA: Have you asked him for them?
GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.
O’MARA: Do you want a copy of them?
GILBREATH: Sure.
O’MARA: I’ll give them to the state. It’s a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven’t had them yet, I don’t want to cross you [ask questions about] on them. Nothing further, thank you, your honor.
Testimony Analysis:
It is obvious that the prosecution was completely unprepared for the hearing, apparently believing that their affidavit would be prima facie evidence of Zimmerman’s guilt and that no bond would be granted. If this was their belief, it indicates not only a lack of experience, but a jaw-dropping lack of preparation and competence. In any case, and particularly in a murder case, no prosecutor should set foot in a courtroom without being absolutely prepared for every eventuality. Mr. O’Mara badly embarrassed them merely by being well prepared and competent.
Gilbreath’s performance was inexplicable. Any competent police officer must be careful about how he answers the questions of defense lawyers. They will inevitably try to twist things to favor their clients. However, in this case, Gilbreath was trying to avoid admitting facts, facts that do not support his case. This makes any police officer look like a partisan rather than an impartial professional whose only concern is for the truth and justice.
Gilbreath’s admission that he has no evidence to contradict the most essential elements of Zimmerman’s defense—that Zimmerman was walking back to his truck before Martin assaulted him; that Martin assaulted Zimmerman; and that Martin injured Zimmerman, beating his head against concrete—is actually shocking. Even more disturbing is his admission that he had never seen—or requested(!?)—Zimmerman’s medical records.
Why is all of this so disturbing? Consider who Gilbreath is. He is one of two supposedly experienced homicide investigators appointed by the State of Florida to examine the evidence gathered by the Sanford Police Department—and to gather additional evidence on his own—and to assist in making a charging decision. He is supposed to be one of two experts, one of two unimpeachable professionals capable of discovering what the Sanford Police might have missed, what they lacked experience to understand. Yet, he is on the record in this hearing—a hearing prior to the preliminary hearing—admitting to rookie mistakes, to being unprepared, even incompetent. Unquenchable curiosity is one of the most important traits of any competent investigator. Wasn’t Gailbreath the least curious about Zimmerman’s medical reports, a vital element of the case? Wasn’t he aware of Zimmerman’s willingness to fully cooperate with the police? About which other elements of the case does he have a similar lack of curiosity?
That an investigator in his position, handling a case so politically charged, had no more evidence than the Sanford Police, and in fact had less for he didn’t bother to inform himself about the medical evidence relating to Zimmerman’s injuries before writing–or collaborating on–an incredibly inadequate affidavit, is virtually a death knell for the prosecution’s case. One of the prosecution’s primary witnesses has revealed himself to be incurious, perhaps even incompetent before ever testifying before a jury.
Gilbreath tried to excuse his lack of knowledge by claiming that he and Osteen handled different tasks, but this is nonsense. Two investigators working what is not a difficult case—working any case–should absolutely be aware of each and every scrap of evidence. They must read each other’s reports and speak with each other about everything they have learned, about every remaining unanswered question. They should discuss every possibility. They should know every aspect of the case intimately. While Gilbreath would testify to interviews he did by himself, or to evidence he gathered alone, there is no excuse—absolutely none—for him to be unaware of any aspect of the case. This would be necessary if for no other reason than to keep from being surprised and made to appear a fool by the defense.
O’Mara made a fool of him, and of the prosecution and its case, by kindly offering to provide a copy of Zimmerman’s medical report to them. A report they should have, should know inside and out, and should be providing to the defense through discovery. Gilbreath was so utterly out-maneuvered that he had no choice but to lamely admit that he would like to have the report provided by O’Mara, the report he admitted he never sought. This, and his overall demeanor and performance on the witness stand in this hearing reveals him to be a poor witness for the prosecution. If the special prosecutor, Ms. Corey, has any professional competence, she should be very, very worried after this hearing.
Mr. O’Mara has certainly earned his pay. He has, professionally and with calm, polite ethical demeanor, asked the questions necessary to establish that the prosecution team made a charging decision without knowing even the most basic facts of the case necessary to consider any charges, to say nothing of second degree murder. He has also locked the prosecution’s case. Any future attempt to try to assert evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s account—and Gilbreath’s testimony–is now easily impeached by the testimony of one of the prosecution’s most important witnesses. Amazing.
NEXT LEGAL STEPS:
The next steps in the legal process will be pre-trial motions and the preliminary hearing. In such cases, the defense will always make a motion for dismissal of the case on the allegation that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof. They do this not only to cover all of their bases, but to build a record for appeal, if necessary. The defense usually doesn’t expect the judge to grant their motion, but they make it anyway. In this case, the defense has an unusual and extraordinarily strong case to make for dismissal, however, it will almost certainly be denied.
Those who have read my first two articles, particularly Update 2, which deconstructed the charging affidavit, know that the case of the defense for dismissal is strong indeed. The affidavit does not prove the three essential elements of the Florida second degree murder statute. This alone should be sufficient grounds for dismissal of the charge, but amazingly, that’s not all. The bond hearing has provided incontrovertible evidence that Zimmerman’s self-defense claim is not only strong, but that the prosecution has no evidence to refute it! For those experienced in such matters, this is mind boggling. In this case, it would be entirely reasonable for the defense to ask for dismissal with prejudice.
A case dismissed with prejudice is over. It may not be refiled; the prosecutor took her shot and missed, game over. Cases are usually dismissed with prejudice only when a judge believes that the behavior of the prosecution was so outrageous–its case so weak–as to amount to an unethical attempt to harass or harm innocents. Arguably, the judge could reasonably come to that opinion in this case. However, because of the media circus surrounding the case, because of the political firestorm whipped up, because of the racial and racist tensions awakened by various race hustlers, race bigots, and fueled by the Attorney General of the United States and the President of the United States, it is unlikely that any judge would dismiss the case, and highly unlikely that it would be done with prejudice.
Considering the virtual certainty of violence, rioting and societal and racial upheaval inherent in this case, no judge will dismiss the case. Most would feel that they have no choice but to let it go to trial.
If this comes to pass it will be a perversion of our system of justice and of the independence of the judiciary. Judges must be able, without social or political pressure, to make decisions that will displease people. However, judges are human, and the stakes in this unremarkable case are themselves remarkable. Any judge ruling on motions will understand that any outcome other than a life sentence for Zimmerman will be met with severe social consequences, probably even deadly violence. Yet they will know that absent a trial, those consequences will likely occur anyway. Better to let the system take its course in the hope that over time, passions will cool to at least some degree. So the case will likely go, at least, to the preliminary hearing, and probably beyond to trial.
Other common pre-trial motions involve the defense trying to exclude evidence that would be harmful to their client. In this case, it’s hard to imagine what that might be. We now know that Zimmerman voluntarily cooperated with the police, not only giving them statements–without the presence of counsel–within 90 minutes of the shooting, but returning with them to the scene the next day where they videotaped his reenactment of the incident. As is well established, after examining all evidence, the Sanford Police found no basis for charges. It was only after the political firestorm whipped up by the media and the gasoline poured on that storm by Mr. Obama that the state of Florida and the Federal DOJ became involved.
In short, Mr. O’Mara would have little about which to object, for his client’s self-defense claim depends upon the evidence given by Zimmerman and compiled by the Sanford Police who are more and more looking like the only competent people involved in this case.
That said, there will almost certainly be a change of venue motion. Passions have been so inflamed by the initially false statements of the media, and their continuing falsehoods despite knowing their statements to be false, that a change of venue is almost certain to be granted. On the other hand, O’Mara might try a bit of legal ju-jitsu by saying that he trusts the people of Sanford to be fair. In so doing, he might convince a jury to be just that. However, this would be a potentially risky maneuver, and would probably eliminate that issue on appeal if Zimmerman were convicted.
The problem with change of venue is: where? The President of the United States, Barack Obama, said: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” The First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, said: “…there’s been a tremendous loss. And we all have to rally around that piece of it” [Rally how, exactly, Mrs. Obama?]. The outcry raised by these comments caused White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, on April 11, 2012, to try to walk things back and to say that the White House would shut up: “I certainly don’t think you’ll hear from him,” and “He and I and others will refrain from commenting on it.”
While one can easily ignore the blathering of race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, it is not so easy to ignore the unwise, intemperate and racially charged pronouncements of the President and the First Lady. However, this at once lends gravity to a change of venue motion and simultaneously complicates it. When the POTUS and FLOTUS poison the national jury pool, where might a change of venue take the trial? What’s left? At the very least, Mr. Obama has—apart from further dividing Americans and damaging racial relations–handed the defense an extraordinary and extraordinarily powerful appeal issue in case of conviction.
The preliminary hearing will be interesting indeed. For those unfamiliar with the criminal justice system, preliminary hearings are held for all serious charges—commonly felonies—and for good reason. They allow an extra layer of review. The focus of a prelim is whether there is probable cause to support a full-blown trial. If the judge finds insufficient probable cause, he may dismiss the case, potentially with prejudice. Preliminary hearings are not complete trials, and judges work to ensure this, but at least a Reader’s Digest version of the prosecutor’s case must be presented–sufficient to prove the elements of the offense to the standard of probable cause–giving the defense a first crack at it. Defense witnesses rarely testify in preliminary hearings, and the defendant, virtually never.
Preliminary hearings in most felonies are not a foregone conclusion. Plea bargains settle most run-of-the-mill, non-violent crimes, though some defense attorneys like to have preliminary hearings because it gives them a chance to see if there is any evidence that didn’t make it into police reports and to assess the strength of prosecution witnesses. For many defense attorneys, there is no downside to having a preliminary. They might pick up at least some useful information, and they might even get lucky and watch a prosecutor’s case fall apart before his eyes. However, in most cases, the defense will waive the preliminary hearing and a plea bargain will ultimately dispose of the case.
In more serious cases, like the Zimmerman case, there will certainly be a preliminary hearing. The defense will not only be looking for evidence not present in police documents and prosecution filings, but will have a chance to question prosecution witnesses and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Good defense attorneys also know that if prosecution witnesses look weak, this can have a real effect on prosecutors and the judge. It is also a chance for the defense to cement prosecution testimony in stone, to lock them into the testimony given during the preliminary hearing. If the prosecution has a solid case, this is not a problem, for facts and legitimate evidence don’t change from hearing to hearing, but as has been amply demonstrated, the prosecution’s case is appearing to be anything but solid.
The preliminary hearing is also another chance for the defense to move for dismissal. And unless the prosecution does a far, far better job than it did in the bond hearing, unless it can present heretofore unknown and convincing evidence that fulfills the elements of the statute, dismissal would be a real possibility—in any normal case. As I’ve noted, the political realities of this case would tend to make dismissal unlikely, not impossible, but certainly unlikely. The case will probably go to trial.
Polygraphs and Voice Stress Analyzers:
One bit of evidence that will not be presented in any hearing or trial is the voice stress examination Zimmerman underwent, and passed, during the initial investigation phase conducted by the Sanford Police. However, the results of that test, even the fact that it was given, will not be allowed at trial. Why not? Zimmerman’s attorney would surely like that to be introduced as evidence.
Polygraphs and VSA’s, commonly known as “lie detectors,” are not allowed as evidence in criminal proceedings. Polygraphs are devices that monitor and record changes in blood pressure, respiration and pulse rate in response to questions posed by an examiner. The public has been badly misinformed by TV and the movies in their depictions of polygraph examinations. Questions must be simple, direct and confined to yes or no answers. Examiners must first establish a response baseline for each individual by asking them questions that the person being examined agrees—in advance–are true and false. By observing the machine’s readout in response to those questions, an examiner can claim to know what the truth and a lie look like for each individual. The examiner will also inform the person beforehand of the significant questions that will be asked. There are no dramatic, unexpected questions and anguished, tearful confessions. When the examination has been completed, the examiner interprets the readings and renders an opinion. They will carefully parse their statements, saying things like “the answers to questions 1-5 are consistent with deception,” or “the answer to question 23 is consistent with truthfulness.”
VSA devices measure microtremors or changes in voice patterns and frequency that are thought to indicate stresses, which are thought to reveal deception. The same preliminary and testing procedures observed by polygraph examiners are applied with this technology too. In fact, there is even an iPhone VSA app, though it is listed in the entertainment category. Following an examination, the VSA examiner, as with the polygraph, interprets the readings and renders an opinion in the same careful language.
No one may be forced to take a polygraph or VSA against their will (this would violate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination), but such devices may be used outside the courts for virtually any other purpose. Police officers, for example, are always polygraphed as part of their pre-employment application process. Those applying for many government jobs, and always those having to do with security clearances, are polygraphed, usually repeatedly throughout their careers. Due to my work in the military and civilian law enforcement, I have been polygraphed many times and taken several VSA examinations as well (yes, I passed them all).
Polygraph and VSA examiners will attest to their absolute accuracy, but the courts are right in not allowing them. How can any machine detect and reveal truth or falsehood, abstractions of the human imagination, flickering nerve transmissions in the brain? We all know that there are degrees to lies, and that some lies are not only wise but kind. Such things are not absolute, yet “lie detector” supporters would try to convince us that they are.
Because both technologies merely monitor and record what might be stress responses, their results, to be valid, must be utterly isolated. In other words, the stresses they record must be the result only of truthfulness or deception and nothing else. Of course, this is impossible. People are infinitely complex and might feel stress unexpectedly brought up by memory, associations provoked by questions, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, the situation in which they find themselves, and a wide variety of other factors. The readout that for one person might indicate a lie, for another indicates nothing more than discomfort. It’s important to remember that the readouts are not themselves black and white. One examiner might interpret a “grey” response as a lie and another, the truth. Polygraph and VSA examiners love to claim that their technology is unbeatable, and of course, they–and the police–have a vested interest in maintaining that belief in the public.
Competent, professional investigators know that the primary value of this technology is in maneuvering criminals into confessions. Still, they also know that in any case, there are some things they can never know with absolute certainty—and they hate uncertainty. Good investigators like to know; they like certainty. They like to be able to wrap up each investigation in a complete, neat and unassailable package with every detail properly categorized and every duck in its proper row. They dislike any doubt, any unknown. If they are truly professionals, they don’t want to charge innocent people with crimes they didn’t commit. Or at the very least, having a polygraph or VSA confirm what they already believe can help them sleep a little more easily. No doubt the Sanford police slept well after the VSA confirmed what their investigation revealed. However, all police officers know that the technology is nothing more than an investigative tool. The danger is that they, and their supervisors, can come to rely upon it rather than spending the time and effort necessary to properly do their jobs, time and effort that can be rather tedious and that will almost always leave some things uncertain.
Final Thoughts:
The prosecution in this case has continued the pattern established by the affidavit, a document Mr. Gailbreath was exceedingly reluctant to claim as his own as he dodged and weaved his way through what must have been—for him—a very uncomfortable hearing. The information currently available to the public leads to one inescapable conclusion: the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to sustain a charge of second degree murder. They may not have sufficient evidence to sustain any charge under Florida law.
Their reasons for making a charge Ms. Corey can’t possibly hope to sustain are the subject of reasonable speculation. They include (but may not be limited to):
(1) Ms. Corey truly believes the evidence supports the charge. However, we now know that even one of her investigators knows that there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s account. If his account stands, charges cannot.
(2) Ms. Corey is making decisions based not on what the law and justice allow but on what she believes the law and justice should allow.
(3) Ms. Corey’s decision is cynically and foolishly political. If so, it is inherently unethical and potentially illegal.
(4) Ms. Corey is trying to right what she believes to be a societal wrong by offering up an appropriate sacrifice. If so, it is absolutely unethical and potentially illegal.
(5) Ms. Corey has made an honest error, but cannot back away from it without losing too much personal, professional and political face.
Some have begun to compare the Martin case to the Duke Lacrosse case, and it is a tempting comparison. For those interested, I can suggest no better source than the Durham In Wonderland blog by history professor KC Johnson whose blogging and book are surely the definitive work on that case. The link is an informative overall case narrative.
The true comparison is in the prosecutors, Mike Nifong in the Duke case and Angela Corey in the Martin case. Nifong used the Duke case to win—through shameless racial pandering–an election he might otherwise have lost, and Corey is also facing the voters in November. It appears that she may be running unopposed, but there is little doubt the Martin case could very well determine her electability, and that must surely be among her decision-making concerns. Nifong pursued a case any reasonable prosecutor would have known was wrong. He had definitive alibi and DNA evidence proving that the defendants were innocent, yet conspired to hide evidence, deny it to the defense, and persecuted young men he knew were innocent. He lied to the courts and committed perjury, and was disbarred, lost his pension, and was eventually convicted of criminal contempt for lying to the court.
While the Martin case has not progressed nearly as far as the Duke case, there are indeed parallels, parallels potentially very dangerous for Corey, for in the Martin case too there are very angry, loud, threatening and politically influential forces demanding the blood of the defendant. The Martin case—just as in the Duke case–has taken on racial and societal significance far beyond its significance in the criminal justice system. A large part of Nifong’s downfall was hubris, excessive pride. From the drama of the ancient Greeks to our time, excessive pride always precedes a fall. If Nifong simply admitted error, perhaps even overzealousness, and dismissed the charges, he would probably still be the prosecutor in Durham today, but his ego would not allow it. Will the same be true of Corey? We shall see.
I suspect that at least one team is enjoying some small degree of satisfaction at the moment: The Sanford Police Department. As I earlier mentioned, they appear–for the time being–to be the only competent investigators having anything to do with this case.
COMING IN THE NEXT UPDATE, THURSDAY, 04-26-12:
* The doctrine of self-defense.
* How TV and the Movies have given Americans very bizarre ideas about physical confrontations and how that will figure in this case.
* A map and analysis of the area.
* Analysis of the relative merits of the cases of the prosecution and the defense.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Since the race pimps have divide this issue along those lines, there is another aspect that makes this decision by the state even more inexplicable. Seminole county is 80% white and less than 10% black. Frankly, with those demographics, getting a conviction of Zimmerman is impossible. The case against Zimmerman relies on the assumption that he is racist. They are simply not going to get a venire that will allow them to draw a jury that will reach that conclusion unanimously.
Not going to happen. That means that all of this is simply kabuki, and the state lost its biggest means of cooercion when Zimmerman made bail.
FBI analysts have proven Zimmerman was not yelling for help. If, Zimmerman’s story is true why would Trayvon be yelling for help when he was the attacker? How can it be race baiting when Zimmerman said “F*cking C**ns”? His statement made it about race. The case doesn’t hinge on race it hinges on who started the confrontation, who was actually standing their ground and who actually was in fear for their life. Since, Zimmerman wasn’t screaming for help that only leaves one other person. If you learn to read you would know that bail is granted almost %100 percent of the time in 2nd degree murder cases in the state of Florida. Even without Zimmerman saying “c**n” the evidence still does him in. Remember the FBI assisted the special prosecutor in building her case and they aren’t in the business of tainting evidence or trumped up charges. Zimmerman broke the law and has to pay. When they present the evidence to the jury in a clear and concise fashion color won’t matter. The case is only muddled to us because of all the false info spewed about but things that can’t be refuted like voice analysis, injuries to Zimmerman and the lack there of to Trayvon (inconsistent with the type of fight Zimmerman claims) and the inconsistency of Zimmerman’s statements with the scientific facts will break the color barrier and convince the jury to convict.
1) The FBI did not opine on the voice recordings. They refused to do so. The only person who has is Mr. Owens, who is in the business of selling his services as an expert witness.
2) Zimmerman never said “coon”. The only source that claimed he did was CNN. They have completely retracted that, because the recording contradicts them.
3) If the FBI assisted the Special Prosecutor, then they made a lie by omission when it was not included in the Probable Cause Affidavit. The most generous conclusion therefore is that they did not assist.
4) The FBI is certainly not immune to mishandling evidence and tainting cases, especially where politics is involved:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2006-01-08/news/0601080078_1_fbi-agents-special-agent-agent-in-charge
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/08/15/MN51841.DTL
https://www.eff.org/pages/patterns-misconduct-fbi-intelligence-violations
As for breaking the color barrier, I think this is the barrier that needs to go down:
Mac, thank you so much for your great posts. It is now clear that the prosecutor has no case and is being totally political in order to please the Martin camp. There case will rest on the contention that, even if GZ is telling the truth, he exaggerated the risk to himself. They are going to be in for a rude awakening when GZ never has to spend another day in jail.
One question: is it really unusual for second-degree murder suspects to be released on bond? One lawyer on TV said there is a FIRST-degree suspect in Florida out on 75,000 bail.
Dear News Junkie:
Thanks for reading and for your comment. As to your final question, let’s consider the Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This creates the presumption that bail will be granted in virtually all criminal cases, however, no right is absolute, and for the most serious crimes such as murder, bail may be denied only if the state can show that the defendant is an extraordinary and obvious risk to the community, and/or is a serious flight risk. Because murder commonly carries a penalty of life in prison or death, it is also presumed that just about anyone charged with it is a flight risk to at least some degree. To be in line with the Constitution, judges often set bond so high that defendants are very unlikely to be able to post it, even with only 10% being required.
With this considered, bond for murder suspects is not unheard of, but is probably “unusual” in the sense that it is more rare than for virtually any other felony offense. In the Zimmerman case, the low bond–I’ve seen higher bonds for many lesser felonies–and the judge’s comments suggest that he was not impressed with the Prosecution’s case or their chances of conviction at trial. I hope this answers your question.
Thanks, that does answer my question.
I note that that Sanford City Council is now backing their Police Chief, which is an indication of how obvious it is that the Prosecutor’s case is falling apart.
It is amazing how dug in some of these reporters are. I heard one anchorwoman talk about how surprised she was that George did not appear to be tall and 250 pounds at the hearing, even though this has been widely reported.
Also, even though the original police report clearly stated that GZ was bleeding from the back of his head, people were still surprised at the photo which showed blood.
Also, there are still people under the impression that Trayvon was shot within a few feet of his house, instead of the 70 yards, clearly reported from Day 1.
I am wondering about how far Trayvon’s body was from the T-shaped intersection of the sidewalks. If it is more than a few feet, there is the question of why George went south on that walkway, and what explanation he gave to police.
Dear News Junkie:
You’re welcome! If you’ll stop by on Thursday, I’ll have a map I’ve pieced together that while not accurate to the meter is at least reasonably representative of the scene. It will help to put things in perspective, I think.
Thanks again!
I will definitely check Thursday. FYI, GZ’s father said on TV that GZ walked WEST on the sidewalk to the street to check for an address, then returned EAST, and was approached from the “back left” (I assume south), by Trayvon, who said “Do you have a problem?”. George said, “No, I don’t have a problem”, and TM punched him. TM’s girlfriend said she heard TM say, “Why are you following me?” and GZ said, “What are you doing around here?”, and the line went dead. Therefore, the question is, what exact path did GZ take that night, and how did TM end up dead where he did? Maybe GZ heard TM talking on the phone and took a few steps south, and a “confrontation” occurred.
interesting side show went on today, police chief of sanford submitted his resignation over this and the town council rejected it. one got emotional and asked what he had done wrong .
I haven’t been able to find a copy of his resignation letter online. It would be interesting to see his reasons. I suspect they may be reasons of conscience, like not serving as chief over a department that prosecutes an innocent man.
Correction: I mean to say that GZ supposedly walked EAST and and then turned around and walked WEST.
It’s amazing to me that the media and the TM camp haven’t caught on yet to O’Mara’s strategy. First his old lawyers say that GZ has disappeared, and the next thing you know O’Mara pops up and George has already turned himself in. Then O’Mara says that he hasn’t had time to review the case, and the next thing you know O’Mara is in a bail hearing tearing the prosecution case apart and GZ gets bail. Then O’Mara talks about how it’s going to take a long time to raise the bail money, and all of a sudden GZ is out on bail. Now the TM camp is saying don’t worry, all the evidence is going to come out at trial, while O’Mara is working to get the charges dismissed without a trial.
I think O’Mara read the arrest affidavit, and said to himself “Can Angela Corey really be this stupid?!” Then he talks to GZ and asks, “George, are you absolutely sure you told the police the absolute truth about what happened that night?” And GZ says yes. So O’Mara says to himself, well let’s test that out at the bail hearing. And lo and behold, the prosecution swears under oath that they don’t have any evidence to contradict George’s story that he did not start the “confrontation” and that Trayvon threw the first punch.
The prosecution will not be able to disprove George’s story because it is the truth. Their case will rest on the contentions that George should not have gotten out of the truck, and that the fact the Trayvon was beating him up did not justify deadly force.
Roy Black and Alan Dershowitz have predicted that the charges will be dismissed without trial, based on self-defense.
By the way, the much-maligned “Stand Your Ground” law does not apply in this case, because GZ contends that there was no opportunity to retreat. He was knocked down without warning.
One more thing, sorry to be so chatty. If you are preparing a map, take a look at this if you haven’t already seen it:
Thank you for the very cogent analysis of this case. I’d love to know what you think of the girlfriend’s story. In the probable cause afidavit it just says the she advised that Martin was scared and didn’t know why he was being followed. That’s it – so apparantly there is not much there for them. I find it curious that it took so long for her story to come out and for her to actually be interviewed by an investigor outside of the Crump team. I’m guessing she might not be a credible witness that will hold up well to cross and they may not want to use her. In other words, she was useful for the narrative the Martin’s wanted to tell through the media, but not as useful to a prosecution. Also – since she wasn’t interviewed in the initial part of the investigation but only weeks after the narrative had been spun she had the opportunity to tailor her story to fit the narrative, how much do you think that would affect her credibility?
There are problems with her testimony coming in late, but the phone records apparently show that she was talking to Trayvon when the “confrontation” started. If you just go by what she has stated publicly, it just seems to confirm GZ’s 9/11 call, that Trayvon stared at GZ, and then ran away, but obviously didn’t go straight home. The prosecution might want to use her, but I don’t think it will help their case.
Dear Iabrat:
Thanks so much for reading and for your great questions. I’ll do my best to address them.
It appears that all the girlfriend could testify to is what you noted. From what we know of the case, her conversation with Martin began more or less at the very beginning of the incident and did not go on for very long, likely stopping about the time–probably before–Martin began running. As you say, there is little for her to add.
Zimmerman’s attorney would certainly object to the testimony on hearsay grounds, but it would probably be allowed. However, it really isn’t related to Zimmerman’s self-defense claim and does nothing to attack that.
As to her credibility, it’s hard to say. She likely has so little of any real value to add that credibility is probably moot. However, there is another very interesting angle I’ll discuss in my Thursday article: Martin’s social network activity that shows him as a gangster type, possibly with drug connections. If the girlfriend takes the stand, the defense can ask her about things like that, things that would be far more harmful to the prosecution’s case than anything she might be able to contribute.
And as you say, the possibility that she “tailored” her narrative to fit the media/prosecution narrative would be something the defense would strongly attack. She sounds very much like a low contribution, high risk witness for the prosecution.
I hope this answers your questions, and thanks again!
There’s a hearsay exception for dying declarations, so it would be an interesting question as to whether or not you could let her testimony in on those grounds. It would be really, really stretching the bounds of the exception (since it is generally for ‘dying utterances'”.)
Funny story:
There was a police officer testifying in a murder case. When asked to describe his arrival on the scene, he said, “I arrived at the scene, and saw the victim lying in a pool of blood outside his car. I ran over to see if I could give aid, and he said–”
“OBJECTION! That’s hearsay, your honor.”
The prosecution pointed to the dying declaration exception, the judge sent the jury out, and the lawyers argued about it for the rest of the afternoon. The judge eventually decides to let it in, and they bring the jury back in the next morning.
“So you were describing yesterday how you ran up the victim, and he said something. What did he say?”
“He said, “uuuuuuugggghh,” and then died.”
Thank you for answering my question, I didn’t realise that the girlfriend’s testimony would be considered hearsay and probably can’t be used. I assume the mother’s contention that it was Trayvon that screamed for help may not be either. Is it appropriate or usual to include inadmissable evidence in a probable cause affidavit?
Dear Labrat:
The mother’s testimony would probably be admissible, but like that of the girlfriend, would probably be of little value. An unscrupulous prosecutor would try to get her on the stand for any reason to stir up emotion, but her testimony would easily be countered.
Affidavits should contain only facts. Anyone lying or stating opinions is, at the least, unethical, and at worst, swearing falsely. The most likely punishment for that sort of thing would be a judge holding the affiant in contempt. While just about anything can be written on an affidavit–the Martin case demonstrates that–it’s at least unethical to include evidence one knows can’t be presented in court.
You are an idiot. Fox News and every other credible news organization has had to post retractions for the pictures they have posted and errors when reporting on his Facebook and twitter account. I know its hard for [crude racial obscenity removed] like you to admit that this was a racially motivated crime and that you wish it were legal to shoot blacks in the street. You can speculate all you want about the reasons for the charges but Zimmerman has no credible evidence supporting his claim and Trayvon on has science and factual evidence on his side. I would love to read your next blog about evolution, birth control and global warming but I’m pretty sure I already know what they would say. Science, methodology and logic are to be thrown out when the victim is of one of the lower brown races. You keep speaking about affidavits but refuse to acknowledge the one the Chief investigator signed saying he was blocked by the state’s attorney from filing charges because he did not believe Zimmerman’s claims and evidencing that there was probable cause. Every single expert confirms that Zimmerman is not screaming for help. Explain that after you are done explaining why the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth and why you are so angry that you a can’t look at the actual scientific facts instead of Zimmerman’s testimony. You’d rather take Zimmerman’s word for it because if it turns out the evidence is correct and Zimmerman is guilty you might be wrong about a whole race or races of people. It might shake up your view about who you are and what you think and maybe just maybe make you realize that Trayvon was a human being and not a thug or black panther but a teenage just like your kid or anyone else. Unless I’m mistaken Zimmerman is the only one with a history of aggravated violence against authority figures and women. The only reason I feel comfortable calling you a racist, would be the fact that you ignore scientific evidence, visual evidence (mortician) and common sense to make this case fit into the box where you house all of notions about non-whites. I sincerely hope something happens to you that shatters your perfect view of a white utopia and wakes you up to the realities of profiling and the fact that your beliefs on race put you and your children at a great disadvantage. I have a 2 year bi-racial son and I hope that in a situation like Trayvon’s he would call the authorities if someone like Zimmerman were following him, run for his life and failing that if chased and then encountered, by a gun toting wanna be cop, fight for his life. If, Trayvon were alive telling his side of the story with the evidence we have presently backing it up I doubt you would lay your prejudices aside and admit what you already know. ZImmerman racially profiled and then initiated the confrontation that killed Trayvon Martin with a firearm that was not even authorized by the HOA bi-laws.
Dear Aurthur Goinsman:
First, swearing and name calling have no place on this site, nor do unsubstantiated accusations of racism. I have allowed your comments to remain because I’m quite confident my readers can judge the value of competing claims for themselves, but if you continue to engage in boorish behavior, you will not be allowed to comment in the future.
If you have links to the retractions you claim Fox and other news outlets have made, by all means, please provide them and I’ll be happy to follow up with verifiable information. Considering the prosecution’s investigator has admitted under oath at the recent bond hearing that the prosecution has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s account, I would be very interested to have links to the “science and factual evidence” on the side of Martin, as you put it. I would also be interested in any links proving any of your other assertions. Should you provide them, I’ll follow them up and report faithfully.
As to my being “an idiot,” I wonder which article you read? Not only have I not called Trayvon Martin names or interjected race into my analysis–I don’t believe that race was a motivating factor in this incident–my work to date has primarily focused on the policies and procedures of the criminal justice process. In the final analysis, I’ll leave it to my readers to determine relative intellectual capacities.
Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
Excellent analysis of the Zimmerman case.
This is part 3, there are links to the other two there.
Good read.
Nicely done Mike.
Excellent analysis.
You still refuse to look at the facts in this case. Voice analysis experts have determined that it was not Zimmerman screaming for help, Zimmerman in his statement to police stated (911 call) he knew Trayvon was in his teens and then during the bail hearing stated he though Trayvon was his age, Zimmerman followed Trayvon for several minutes resulting in a foot chase, phone records confirm at least part of Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend’s story, Zimmerman changed his story at least one time, Zimmerman brought the gun that was used to the scence and claims that the struggle was for the gun (which means the gun was displayed in some form or fashion), Trayvon Martin was breaking no law by walking in a neighborhood his soon to be stepmother was living in, a witness to the foot chase has been found (mentioned in bail hearing, Zimmerman never admits to having anytype of foot chase, and finally the Zimmerman 911 call where Zimmerman is told to cease and desist and where he uses words like as*****le and c**n demostrating his is very angry and agitated. I’m not saying Zimmerman murdered Trayvon but I am saying he gave chase, was ampted up, had preconvied notions about Trayvon, initiated a confrontation, brought the gun to the scence and displayed or brandished the and then shot Trayvon (who was standing his ground) when the confrontation did not go his way. There is absolutely no way an sane person can discount the 911 tape where someone was screaming help (Experts have confirmed it is not Zimmerman) and the contradictory statements Zimmerman continues to make. Zimmerman said he was yelling for help and science has proven he wasn’t. Ask yourselves why Trayvon who suppossedly attacked Zimmerman would be screaming for help, if he was the aggressor and why Zimmerman claims it was him when it is a 97% certainty it wasn’t. Why would an attacker scream help if he had the upper hand in the way Zimmerman characterizes the interaction? I’ll tell you why because Trayvon didn’t have the upper hand and wasn’t the aggressor. Zimmerman was a bouncer and was let go because his boss stated “His temper made him a liability”, he pushed a police officer and his own wife has had to call the police on him twice. He has an issue with power, control and violence. I am an African American man who lives in a gated community and I can tell you none of our security staff would have behaved the Zimmerman did. For instance when I first moved in I was walking and talking on my cell phone and was stopped (had a Maryland hoodie on). I was approached by a gaurd in a marked car (Zimmerman’s wasn’t), greeted with a “Hello how are you doing?”, then an explanation of who he was (Thomas G.) and then asked whether I was a resident or visitor. There was absolutely no assumption of guilt. Zimmerman assumed Trayvon was guilty evidenced by the 911 call and his statement “These a**wholes always get away”. It never occured to him to approach Trayvon in a respectful straight forward manner. Instead he followed at a distance in an unmarked car for a long period of time (enough to intimidate anyone), then followed on foot, then gave chase, lost Trayvon and then searched for him until he found him and initiated the confrontation. Trayvon ran because he was scared and who wouldn’t be when someone is stalking you for several minutes and then confronts you with a firearm or at least an aggressive stance and a firearm. I would fight everytime. Trayvon’s girlfriend, the 911 call, the screams on the call, the witness of the foot chase and even Zimmerman’s injuries will all end up working against them in the end. The only evidence supporting Zimmerman’s claim are pictures of injuries he says he sustained in a life or death struggle with a teen who was screaming for help (FBI analyst have proven its not Zimmerman), a teen he admits he chased and followed and pictures of a dead teen’s body that show no marks or any other type of evidence consitent with the fight Zimmerman describes (except the gunshot). Zimmerman’s attitude and aggression were responsible for the murder or assault of the young man and he deserves to go to jail even though I truly believe that a killing was never intended. However, I do believe he intended to intimidate and harass Trayvon and I think the evidence shows that. When you look at the evidence of stalking, Zimmerman’s aggressive mindset (911 call) it becomes apparent he was looking for trouble.
These so called experts have not been sworn to testify, have not been cross examined, and have not been ruled as experts by the court. In addition, when Mr. Owen was admitted as an expert in cases, he required multiple exemplars closely matching the tone and inflection of the evidence in question:
“In order to complete a proper voice comparison, I regularly require six useable samples of each of the phrases I use for comparison purposes. Here, however, given Mr. Britt’s obfuscation, I do not have six useable samples of even one such phrase, despite the fact that I attempted to obtain 600 exemplars from Mr. Britt for approximately 18 phrases.”
These are the sorts of problems Mr. Owens will face in a real trial, as opposed to a media circus.
On the 911 call, he said Martin was in his late teens, meaning 18 or 19, not 17.
No. It doesn’t. Martin, being on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the concrete, could have easily felt the gun while sitting on him, or have knocked if off of Zimmerman’s body while he was attempting to beat him to death.
Lie.
Lie. Zimmerman never used a racial slur in the 911 call, and all accounts of his demeanor where that he never used racial slurs at all. That libel was spread by CNN — and then retracted by CNN.
Sorry, but the “science” is anything but. There are multiple eyewitnesses who saw and heard Zimmerman screaming for help. With that sort of contradiction, you don’t assume all the witnesss are wrong. You assume that the “expert” is wrong.
You also didn’t start running as soon as you saw them. Martin did. Frankly, if Martin had stopped and talked to Zimmerman, it is very likely that he would have gotten one of Zimmerman’s index cards with his contact info on it, like Zimmerman gave to all the other residents (black and white) instead of getting shot.
Lie. That is exactly what Zimmerman did. When Zimmerman approached him in a respectful, straightforward manner, Martin ran away.
The 911 transcript does not support this narrative. Zimmerman spotted Martin and made his call, from his stopped truck. Martin saw Zimmerman, then approached him with his hand in his waistband. Zimmerman continued his phone call, and Martin (perhaps when he saw the phone and realized Zimmerman may be talking to the police) turned and ran away. Zimmerman begain chasing him. The dispatcher told him he didn’t need to do that. Zimmerman replied, “OK,” and says, “He ran.” Past tense. Any rational person would interpret that to mean the Zimmerman has stopped, and has lost sight of Martin. He ends the call with, “Actually, could you call them and tell [the responding officers] where I’m at?” That means that he has stopped and is waiting for the police.
Martin had already approached him for a confrontation once at the beginning. It’s certainly reasonable that he would get his courage up and confront Zimmerman again.
The voice analyst is not an FBI analyst. The FBI refused to opine, as evidenced by the prosecution using Martin’s mother’s speculation instead. The evidence that Zimmerman has is his injuries, the 911 call, the testimony of several witnesses that support his story, and logic.
All the Martin camp has are lies, misinformation, and a compelling story (that doesn’t match the facts.)
Once again you are mistaken on each and every count. The Zimmerman witnesses say they saw a fight and they never said who was on top or on bottom. “It was too dark.” Another witness saw the foot chase and regardless of that why was Zimmerman chasing anyone at anytime. Before you get all “white is right” please read and remember that those same FBI analyst that you claim refused to give opinions will be deposed by Zimmerman’s attorney because guess what they will be testifying for the prosecution. The initial affidavit does have to contain every piece of evidence the prosecution has nor does it state that the investigation is closed. The FBI will testify to the fact that George Zimmerman is not the one screaming for help on the tape and that through cell tower pings which are accurate up to 30 ft Zimmerman was not where he said he was during the “missing minutes”. It is amazing that you take Zimmerman’s story as a scientific fact when every once of scientific data goes against him. He has medical records that mean nothing because just as you are so quick to point out they are inconclusive as to who threw the first punch and whether ZImmerman had his gun drawn initially. If, the security in my neighborhood had been unmarked I would have responded in a very different fashion. Zimmerman never intended to be straight forward or respectful because he had already decided that Trayvon was up to no good. Please remember that Zimmerman had no authority to chase pursue, question or stalk Trayvon yet he did all of these. You wouldn’t do it so ask yourself why did Zimmerman? I know it hurts you to admit the only thing Zimmerman has is his story which has changed. Oh and a 8 to ten year difference is not a couple years younger than me.
Oh and CNN never retracted anything having to do with the statements. Check their website you can still listen to the tape confirming what I have said. Also Zimmerman said he did not give but followed the 911 operator’s request and began returning to his car. Fox New the Drudge report and others have had to admitt the pictures you and others love to rail on and on about were of another teen. I know all blacks look alike to you but in fact we are very different. I wonder how you would act if I followed you around your neighborhood, chased you on foot, and then confronted you with a gun in my waistband demanding to know what you are doing here? That’s what Zimmerman said and that is what his girlfriend will testify to. You are an abject racist who is trying as hard as you can to justify your feeling about a killing you know was unjust. If, only Trayvon had been white. Zimmerman is going to jail so go to your militia headquaters keep shooting pictures of Trayvon for target practice. Your buddy Zimmerman is done.
Dear person who accused me of racism:
[Strong invective] you. I don’t talk to bigots.
Dear Aurthur Goinsman:
You are welcome to comment here only as long as you stick to the facts and do not resort to name-calling. You are free to express your opinions, but those who resort to cries of racism prove only that they have no real arguments. That is not acceptable here, Sir.
By all means, visit again next Wednesday, where I will be pleased to demonstrate where your assertions are in error, and I shall do so with verifiable proof.
@ Aurthur Goinsman, I feel so sorry for you. As a hispanic/ black male, I know racism. Where I live now I was onced stopped by a cop and his first question was, “do you speak english?” This case is not about that. As an nonreligious person I feel that being a consummate skeptic is much needed. Unfortunately you have fallen short of that. Your stance is contrite and factless. Sorry to say this but its racist people like your self who perpetuate an on going cycle of hate and mistrust. Let’s say for a moment that your skewed hypothesis is correct and gz did not mean to kill tm. Have you ever thought about the implications for gz? Tm is dead and as unfortunate as that is, if innocent GZ has to live with the fact that not only has he ended anothers life, but life as he knows it is now over for him.
I highly doubt you have taken another mans life. Serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, were my life was on the line and I had to defend myself and my crew, I still have certain moments that haunt me. Even officers who use their weapon in the line of duty have to undergo psyche evals to make sure they are okay. Be a better person. Understand the amount of pain the martins and the zimmermans have to endure and hope you never know that kind of struggle. Even if GZ was justified in shooting TM, his life is changed forever.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 5: Evidence and Character « Stately McDaniel Manor
Question: Are there publically avuilable transcripts and commentary of this?
Chris
Dear Chrishanger:
Part of the interesting and unusual progression of this case is that Zimmerman’s attorney acknowledged only a few days ago that he has yet to receive complete discovery. In other words, the lawyer representing a man charged with second degree murder has yet to be given all of the documents and related evidence the prosecution has. He is, by law, entitled to have everything the prosecution has, yet they are not turning it over.
It goes without saying that if he doesn’t have it, the public surely doesn’t have it. I’m watching this closely and will report as soon as anything of significance comes up. I suspect the reason the prosecution may be slow walking this is simply that they have no additional evidence, and since their investigator already admitted they have no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s account, they are probably desperately trying to find anything that might in the slightest way support what for the moment appears to be an insupportable charge.
Thanks for your question and attention.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 7: The Evolving Narrative Crumbles « Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 9.3: To Assault or Not To Assault? « Stately McDaniel Manor
I originally had a few comments and statements to make after reading this article, but got totally sidetracked and flabbergasted when reading Aurthur Goinsman’s long rants and distasteful language. I have seen a few in the past like that and was going to answer some of it but everlastingphelps did a very good job of it. I would like to add though that the experts that were hired by the OS are completely unreliable a lot of research shows me. As everlastingphelps shows Owens own set of criteria were not met and his website also claimed the same thing even concerning his new software. He claimed during one of his appearances that he used it to help solve the Davalloo case. The reason I bring this up was Aurthur Goinsman’s calim that Owens proved that it wasn’t George to a 97% certainty and this is entirely incorrect. Mr.Owens stated that there was only a 48% match to George and he would EXPECT to see a 90 – 97% match if it was George. Now for my Reference to the Davalloo case. This is what Mr. Owens said in another interview regarding the Davallo case. He satted he wasn’t able to do it with any certainty when the Davallo actually occurred, but was Able to before the case went to trial this year. What he failed to mention was the fact that he reported only a 68% match for that case and that the JURY totally disregarded his testimony as a factor for their decision. I would also like to mention the use of the FBI analyses by Aurthur Goinsman. The FBI analysis was mentioned in the bond hearing, but only briefly, and it was stated that the analysis was inconclusive. This is now backed up by the document dump.
Now I will say that though I am late to your posting involving the case that it has been excellent and informative to me. I would like to ask the question about the SYG application of this case. Someone stated earlier that SYG doesn’t apply here because George was knocked to the ground and couldn’t retreat. I don’t think that the fact he couldn’t retreat should apply and also since he apparently did try to get away from Trayvon and the attack-at least as much as he could by at least trying to scoot away from the concrete and struggling for as long as he did before using the weapon would seem to me he did and so it should apply. I also have to say NOT using SYG in the end count at least, would still leave him open to lawsuits which would seem so unfair just because he was trapped and couldn’t retreat.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 14: Crumbling Foundations and Disqualification « Stately McDaniel Manor
Zimmerman was just defending himself from Trayvon.
This Trayvon vs Zimmerman fight to the death poster illustrates what happened that night:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=&_nkw=poppy+trayvon+zimmerman+poster
Trayvon got away and was almost home, and then backtracked and followed Zimmerman to his truck and started beating the crap out of Zimmerman. I love how Trayvon’s friend, Rachel Jeantel took the stand and let it slip that he said a racist remark a few seconds before he attacked Zimmerman. If he hadn’t been shot, this beating would have been a hate crime on Trayvon. I was appalled by Trayvon’s use of foul language and racial slurs.
Note to to future attackers: If you knock a guy down, and notice he has a concealed weapon, don’t go grabbing for it yelling “You are gonna die tonight!” as that gives the owner of the gun a license to kill you in self defense.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 53: All White People Are Racist! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 54: All White People Are Racist! | Stately McDaniel Manor