At the end of Update 6, I promised to address these—and more—issues in this update:
PRIMARY THEMES OF THE EVER-EVOLVING NARRATIVE:
(1) A Sanford Police Investigator wanted, at some point, to see Zimmerman charged with manslaughter, therefore he must be guilty and must be convicted of second degree murder.
(2) If Zimmerman remained in his vehicle, everything would have been just fine, therefore, Zimmerman must be guilty and must be convicted of second degree murder.
VERY INCONVENIENT FACTS (for the prosecution):
(1) When observed by George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin was breaking the law.
(2) The investigators and assistant prosecutor that prepared the charging affidavit lied on that document and had to have known they were lying.
I shall indeed address these issues, but first, it’s important to understand just how far from fact and professional practice the special prosecutor, Angela Corey, and even the vaunted FBI, have allowed themselves to be led by those supporting and profiting from what I’ve come to call “the narrative.” “The Narrative” is simply the media/Martin Family/Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson/Progressive/President and Mrs. Obama/special prosecutor/Federal Department of Justice version of the story that requires that Trayvon Martin be a helpless, candy-eating, angelic child murdered in cold blood and for no reason by the racist, racially profiling George Zimmerman. Adherence to the narrative allows no modification of that near-religious belief in the face of evidence, for the narrative reveals truth beyond truth and fact; it speaks to a higher truth, that of social, racial justice.
DOESN’T THE FBI HAVE ROXIO?
One of the stranger parts of a very strange prosecution case is the recent revelation of the inclusion of two FBI audio examiners (Kenneth W. Marr and Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone) on the prosecution’s current witness list:
Also on the list are two FBI audio experts who have said publicly that they believe the screams heard on the 911 call are Trayvon’s.
The narrative has, for some time, claimed that it was Martin’s voice—not Zimmerman’s—crying out for help on a 911 call. The media have claimed that Martin’s parents have confirmed it. Despite the fact that civilian audio experts have not been able to verify this—though the media has tried to make it appear that they have—the media and supporters of the narrative have continued to claim that the FBI has determined that the voice is Martin’s. Since the FBI experts are on the witness list, one might be tempted to think they will testify that the voice is, in fact, Martin’s. One would think wrongly.
Among the documents recently released by the prosecution are copies of the FBI examiner’s report. Following are screen shots of the three- page document.
FBI Audio Analysis Report PDF, p.1
FBI Audio Analysis Report PDF, p.2
FBI Audio Analysis Report PDF, p.3
The text circled in red reads:
‘Analysis of the word following ‘fucking’ at approximately 2 minutes and 20 seconds of file . . . was requested to be identified.’
‘The audio on all eight files of specimen Q1 was enhanced and three FBI CD-R discs were made each containing direct and enhanced copies from specimen Q1.
The specific request to identify the word following ‘fucking’ a approximately 2 minutes and 20 seconds of file . . . could not be done [emphasis mine] due to weak signal level and poor recording quality.
Voice comparison is not possible [emphasis mine] for the designated voices due to extreme stress and unsuitable audio quality.’
‘Critical listening and digital signal analyses further revealed that the screaming voice of the 911 call is of insufficient voice quality and duration to conduct a meaningful voice comparison with any other voice samples [emphasis mine] primarily due to the screaming voice being: (1) produced under an extreme emotional state, (2) limited in the number of words and phrases uttered, (3) superimposed by other voices most of the time, and (4) distant, reverberant and very low signal level.’
ANALYSIS:
To put it as simply as possible, the FBI struck out. They cannot say whose voice is crying out for help. The sample provided them is of poor quality and while they don’t specifically say this, I suspect that they, just like the civilian examiners, don’t have the proper number and kind of voice samples of Zimmerman and Martin with which to make a competent comparison even if the 911 call was of sufficient quality. The FBI will be able to testify only that they don’t know who is screaming for help.
One particularly odd aside to the FBI’s analysis is their inability to determine that the word following “fucking,” was in fact, “cold.” Regular readers will recall that I addressed this issue in detail in Update 5 where I wrote of Neil J. Schulman who singled handedly cleared up the controversy by means of off-the-shelf Roxio software.
Raging early in the case, the controversy was whether George Zimmerman said “fucking coon”–obviously proving beyond doubt that he was a racist and therefore must have murdered Martin with premeditation and in cold blood–or something else when speaking with a Sanford police dispatcher while reporting Martin’s actions. Schulman proved conclusively that the word was “cold,” and about nine days later, CNN, which initially claimed that its professional and irrefutable analysis proved the word was “coon,” was forced to retract that finding. However, the reporter, Gary Tuchman, did so only with much drama and the greatest reluctance. Take the link to see the CNN segment and to hear Schulman’s work.
That the FBI could not discover what a private citizen, using off the shelf software not maximized for such analysis, did with no difficulty might tend not to reflect well on the ability of those involved and would surely become embarrassing in court.
Also on the witness list are civilian audio analysts, Ed Primeau and Tom Owen. The Orlando Sentinel, like much of the media, also got their findings wrong:
Also listed are two employees with the Volusia County medical examiner’s office and a pair of Federal Bureau of Investigation audio experts. The list also includes Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, two audio analysts who told the Sentinel they believe the screams heard in one 911 call were those of Trayvon, not Zimmerman.
As I noted in Update 5 (related links are in that article), even CNN reluctantly admitted (but only after much obfuscation):
The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed that they cannot say who was screaming.
And on top of this, Investigator Gilbreath, one of special prosecutor Corey’s two primary investigators, admitted under oath in the bond hearing that the efforts of Primeau, Owen, Marr and Nakasone came to nothing; they cannot reveal who was screaming for help.
Why then would Ms. Corey list these four men as witnesses? The ultimate testimony of each will come down to “I have no idea who was screaming.” There are several primary possibilities:
(1) It’s a psychological ploy to try to intimidate the defense and to try to trick the public into thinking she has more, and more damning, evidence than she actually has. In other words, it’s a bluff, and a particularly poor one.
(2) Corey is now actively trying the case in the court of public and political opinion and will do whatever is necessary to keep that opinion enraged, engaged and on her side for as long as possible.
(3) Corey hopes to try to get enough SWAGs (Scientific Wild-Ass Guesses) on the trial record in the hope that a jury will give those greater weight than the ultimate admissions that the four analysts really don’t know anything about the issue at hand: who was screaming on the 911 tape?
Each of these possibilities is either idiotic, unethical or both. The defense—and an increasing portion of the public—knows these men have no evidence to add. Corey also has to know that the defense will object to SWAGs and that the judge is almost certain to agree and not let them make such inherently prejudicial guesses. Which leaves essentially rabble-rousing, fanning the flames of race. Professional, ethical prosecutors don’t do that.
What about Martin’s family? His mother has claimed that the screaming voice is Trayvon’s, but his father has said—and one must admire his honesty—that it was not, which was confirmed by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz in a May 18 article.
Corey might try to invoke sympathy by using the mother, but any competent defense attorney–and Mr. O’Mara is certainly competent–would use not only the father’s countering testimony, but could easily and kindly help a jury to understand that a grieving mother who wants to believe the best of her child, true or not, could easily talk herself into believing it.
ZIMMERMAN’S INJURIES:
There is now no doubt, none whatsoever, that the injuries George Zimmerman received precisely match what he must have received if attacked as he said Martin attacked him. CNN has a series of photos taken shortly after the incident that reveal Zimmerman’s injuries quite clearly, but what is most interesting is what the fourth photo in their series does not reveal: the slightest injury to his hands. It is obvious that he did not strike Martin. The autopsy report supports this as well with its recitation of Martin’s damaged knuckles and no facial injuries or other injuries attributable to blows from Zimmerman. All of the known testimonial evidence, all of the physical evidence, all of the medical evidence clearly indicates that it happened just as Zimmerman said it did. This makes his self-defense claim extraordinarily strong, so strong that Ms. Corey must dismiss the charge against Zimmerman.
If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.
Note: The 8th photo in that CNN series also makes it quite clear that it had been raining, and heavily, that night. The grass and sidewalk depicted are clearly soaking wet. Multiple fresh raindrops are also visible on the lens of the camera.
INVESTIGATOR SERINO:
The narrative has shifted to give Sanford police investigator Christopher Serino absolute moral authority to determine charges in this case. There is substantial irony in this of which narrative supporters are apparently unaware. The narrative has painted the entire Sanford Police Department as incompetent racists whose findings must be ignored in favor of the special prosecutor, yet now at least one member of the department has been—likely temporarily—rehabilitated.
This is a tempest in a teapot. Here’s what I had to say in the first article of this series on April 4, 1012 (available in the SMM Trayvon Martin Case archive):
Another important factor to consider is that there is often disagreement among police officers in cases. One detective might be convinced that suspect Billy Bob is as guilty as sin and should have the book thrown at him, while another detective simply doesn’t see it that way. One detective might think there is plentiful probable cause while another isn’t quite comfortable with what they’ve developed. It can be useful–on many levels–to have an uninterested third party make such decisions. Much has been made by the media, for example, of the assertion of a lack of complete agreement in the Martin case within the Sanford PD. I have no idea of the accuracy of this assertion or of the degree of any disagreement, if any existed. However, it is not at all uncommon for disagreement to be present within the ranks of investigators or between investigators and police or civilian administrators.
The point is quite simply that such disagreements are a daily matter in law enforcement agencies, who must have the discretion to work such things out themselves. Absent direct evidence that the decision not to charge Zimmerman was the result of incompetence, political pressure, racial bias, or some other unprofessional, unethical, potentially even illegal concern, this is not a relevant matter. Officers make decisions not to arrest and/or charge people with crimes every day, sometimes many times a day. I am unaware of any such indicators in this case. It might also be worthwhile to remember that Serino reportedly wanted a charge of manslaughter, which is a lesser charge than that lodged by Ms. Corey. This would tend to take a bit of air of the argument as well.
The facts and the law have bourn out the wisdom of Serino’s superiors and of the local prosecutor’s office in overruling Serino and declining to prosecute Zimmerman. Ms. Corey and the other purveyors of the narrative would be wise to drop this theme as quickly as possible.
WHAT IF:
The law does not deal in what ifs, and for good reason. What ifs are supposition, fiction, unrealized possibilities and potentials that may or may not ever take place. They are, at best, guesses at a future that never occurred considered in past tense. They have limited utility in weighing various scenarios to see which is supported by actual evidence, but they are not absolute cause and effect. While one can argue that the “scuffle” referred to in the affidavit would have never taken place if Zimmerman had not left his vehicle when he did to try to keep Martin in sight for the police he knew were on the way, and therefore, Martin might still be alive, and while reasonable people might even think that likely, no rational judge will allow such supposition to be spoken in court. If he did, it would “open the door”—as is the common legal term to any line of questioning that allows follow up questioning by opposing counsel—to unlimited and equally invalid supposition. For example:
* If Zimmerman remained in his vehicle, Martin would have merely doubled back and confronted and assaulted him there.
* If Trayvon Martin had gone straight to and straight back from the 7-11 that night, he would have never seen George Zimmerman.
* If Trayvon Martin has not been under the influence of marijuana that night, he might not have put into action the chain of events that led to his death.
* If Trayvon Martin had simply run straight home, Zimmerman would have never seen him or known where he went.
* If Trayvon Martin was not repeatedly calling his girlfriend that night, he might not have been distracted and would have run straight home, therefore his girlfriend is responsible for his death.
And on and on such arguments go, into infinity. Despite the fact that each is theoretically plausible, if the judge in this case is a professional, this sort of testimony will never be allowed in court, though I suspect Ms. Corey will try to raise it, which would be quite unethical. The alternative is that she is, again, trying the case in public, which is equally unethical.
However, some commentators, even in the blogosphere, are adamant that Zimmerman should not have left his vehicle. On a recent edition of The O’Reilly Factor, the Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, latched onto this supposition and rather smugly observed that if Zimmerman believed he was in deadly danger he should not have left his truck.
It is one thing to argue tactical matters, which is essentially what most in the blogosphere are arguing. However, in leaving his vehicle Zimmerman was not breaking the law, and considering the circumstances, was doing what he, as the head of the local neighborhood watch, should have done. He was on the phone with the police dispatcher who was encouraging him to provide up to the second information on Martin and his actions. He left the vehicle only when Martin took off running, leaving him behind, and obviously, only to keep Martin in sight. Clearly, he had no reason to believe that Martin was actively dangerous at that point. When the dispatcher suggested he need not follow Martin, Zimmerman, who had already lost sight of him, agreed and clearly stopped, but continued walking a short distance to see if he could spot Martin. He did this willingly because he was not actively pursuing Martin, who he had lost track of minutes earlier, but because he was merely trying to keep him in sight. When he believed he had lost Martin once and for all, he told the dispatcher that he would meet the responding officers near the entrance to the neighborhood and was returning to his vehicle.
Zimmerman had no reason to believe he was in any danger during that time, because Martin was running away and Zimmerman actually lost sight of him. He had no reason to believe he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death until he was on his back on the ground, Martin was astride him and beating him, a “scuffle” which all known evidence indicates was initiated and caused by Martin. Mr. Crump clearly knows this, but like Ms. Corey, is absolutely trying the case in public.
It should be remembered that as the local neighborhood watch captain, Zimmerman had no special police powers. He was not operating under a rigid set of policies and procedures, the violation of which might result in discipline or firing. He was doing nothing at all improper or illegal. One may second guess Zimmerman’s actions ad nauseum, but the fact remains that given the circumstances of that place and time, he acted reasonably–and entirely within the law–in trying to keep Martin in sight for the responding police.
LIES AND THE LAW:
Alan Dershowitz is less than impressed with Ms. Corey:
If this evidence [the evidence of Zimmerman’s injuries] turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.
There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had ‘a full face picture’ of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed ‘a bloodied nose.’ The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.
But none of this was included in any affidavit.
Mr. Dershowitz is quite right, in fact, far more right than he knew when he wrote his article. The recent document dump clearly indicates that Corey knew all about Zimmerman’s injuries. She had the reports of the many police officers that saw and recorded Zimmerman’s injuries. She had the reports of the fire department paramedics. She had the photographs taken of Zimmerman, not only minutes after the police arrived, but at the police station, after his injuries had been cleaned up and still showed substantial evidence of bleeding. She had the statements of witnesses who saw Zimmerman in the days that followed and observed his bandages, swollen face, black eyes, etc. She had all of the reports, recordings, videotapes, all of the evidence given to the police by Zimmerman himself. She had the autopsy report, and all of that evidence—all of it—supported Zimmerman’s story with a clarity and precision that is not often seen in police work. Yet she mentioned nothing of it in the affidavit.
There is yet a greater lie, perhaps series of lies, revealed in the document dump. In the affidavit (a PDF copy of the two page document is available in Update 2) the affiants (Investigators O’Steen and Gilbreath) wrote:
Your affiants. . .have taken sworn statements from witnesses, spoken with law enforcement officer who have provided sworn testimony in reports, reviewed other reports, recorded statements, phone records, recorded calls to police, photographs, videos and other documents. . .
Martin. . . was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime.
They continued in this vein, suggesting once again that Zimmerman was wrong in believing Martin might be about to commit a crime, and continued the essential elements of the narrative. They lied, and they had to have known they lied.
How do I know? They admitted they reviewed the evidence. During the bond hearing Gilbreath admitted under oath that his supervisor “Bernie (Assistant special prosecutor Bernardo DeLaRionda) was the editor and co-author of the affidavit. They had the autopsy report. They knew Trayvon Martin was in possession of marijuana. They knew this was a material factor in this case, and they said nothing at all about it. Florida law states (I have excluded some references to other statutes and a long list of drugs. Those interested need only take the link and look up the statue numbers provided to see what I omitted):
893.13 Prohibited acts; penalties.—
(6)(a) It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. Any person who violates this provision commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If the offense is the possession of not more than 20 grams of cannabis, as defined in this chapter, or 3 grams or less of a controlled substance described in s. 893.03(1)(c)46.-50., the person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
893.03 Standards and schedules.—The substances enumerated in this section are controlled by this chapter. The controlled substances listed or to be listed in Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V are included by whatever official, common, usual, chemical, or trade name designated.
(1) SCHEDULE I.—A substance in Schedule I has a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and in its use under medical supervision does not meet accepted safety standards. The following substances are controlled in Schedule I:
(b) 37. Tetrahydrocannabinols.
The acronym for “Tetrahydrocannabinols” is THC, or the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. In other words, marijuana is illegal in Florida, and having it in the body is every bit as much possession as carrying it in one’s pockets. What more revealing evidence than the psychoactive ingredients and residue of marijuana mixing with your bodily fluids could there be that you had been smoking—possessing—marijuana? As Update 6 revealed, Martin had considerable evidence of marijuana in his blood and urine, sufficient in his blood alone to be considered impaired or under the influence in some states. I was not able to find a specific presumptive legal standard for marijuana intoxication in the Florida statutes. The statute that appears to control this issue reads:
“316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.—
(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:
(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired. . .[emphasis mine]
Chapter 877-111 lists controlled substances, and marijuana is, of course, included. The impairment threshold might be relatively easy to prove in many cases.
What is interesting indeed is that the document dump specifically excluded the levels of marijuana (its chemical indicators) in Martin’s urine. Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that this was not an innocent oversight (irony, anyone?) and that the prosecution was seeking to conceal this information. But from who? The defense, if they don’t already have it, will have it eventually. The law and the judge will see to that.
Being cynical, as this case has caused me to be, one might suspect that the information was being withheld to help the public case, because it likely reveals not only a level sufficient to indicate that not only was Martin under the influence of marijuana—he was impaired–but that must have been smoking it shortly before he was spotted by George Zimmerman who told the police dispatcher (transcript available here):
We’re had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. . .This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something.
There is now compelling reason to believe that he was.
Continuing, for a moment, in our cynicism, we now understand why Martin ran away from Zimmerman and why he did not run straight home: he was carrying marijuana and had no idea who Zimmerman was. He might have been an off-duty cop, but in any case, Martin, who was living in the neighborhood because he was serving a ten-day suspension from school, and who told his parents he was going to the 7-11 for Skittles and tea, didn’t want it to be known that he had been smoking pot, and certainly didn’t want to be caught with it. So he ran, and quickly found a place to ditch his stash. He couldn’t go straight home and rush in the house, soaking wet and breathing heavily; he had more important, more immediate business. Wouldn’t this scenario also explain why Martin did not go straight to the 7-11 and straight home? Any juvenile pot smoker is practiced in the art of concealing the smell and effects of their smoking from adults. Martin knew he had to spend time outdoors, allowing the wind and rain to minimize the smell.
Those interested in the timing involved should visit two articles: One by Jeff Lipkes in The American Thinker, and the second by Dan Linehan at Wagist.
Of course, the other major issue of lying by omission in the affidavit has to do with Zimmerman’s statements, his injuries, all of the physical and other evidence that directly supports Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, and the autopsy results that also directly support Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. None of this powerful exculpatory evidence was mentioned in the affidavit.
As I reported in Update 6, CNN has attempted to throw cold water on at least some aspects of this scenario:
According to records obtained by the Miami Herald, Martin had been suspended from school three times: once for writing graffiti on a door, another time for school truancy and the last time due to drug residue being found in his backpack.
Speaking of her son’s suspension to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Sybrina Fulton said, ‘Whatever he had dealings with the school, it was not criminal, it was not violent, he’s never been arrested.’
‘Toxicology tests found elements of the drug in the teenager’s chest blood — 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH) — according to the medical examiner’s report. There also was a presumed positive test of cannabinoids in Martin’s urine, according to the medical examiner’s report. It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were.
No precise levels on the urine were released.
CNN did provide this information:
While some states have zero-tolerance policies for any drug traces for driving while impaired, others set certain benchmarks, the website of California’s Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs notes. In Nevada, that equates to 2 ng/ml for THC and 5 ng/ml for THC-COOH — also known as marijuana metabolite.
In other words, while Florida apparently does not have this sort of specific standard—rather, a zero-tolerance standard–the level of THC and THC-COOH in Martin’s blood would have rendered him under the influence for driving in Nevada, and certainly in other states as well.
Being a good purveyor of the narrative, CNN did try to minimize the effect of this finding:
Dr. Michael Policastro, a toxicologist, cautioned against reading too much into the blood THC levels, adding that one cannot make a direct correlation between those findings and a level of intoxication.
He also noted levels of THC, which can linger in a person’s system for days, can spike after death in certain areas of the body because of redistribution.
And Dr. Drew Pinsky, an addiction specialist who hosts a show on CNN’s sister network HLN, added that marijuana typically does not make users more aggressive.
Doctors Policastro and Pinsky are partially correct. A given level of intoxication that might leave one person grossly and obviously impaired might appear to have no effect on another. And marijuana does tend to make many people silly or docile, but not by any means all. Marijuana use does heighten aggression in some people. Given this, why not make Martin’s urine levels public, unless of course they were so high as to render the opinions of the good doctors and narrative defenders irrelevant, even laughable?
At the risk of being accused—again—of being an evil racist picking on a grieving mother, it must also be observed that Sybrina Fulton’s assertions are not entirely accurate. What we do know, however, of Trayvon Martin’s background does lend credence to the suggestion that he was a drug user. The autopsy results make that plain, but that’s not the only evidence.
As I reported in Update 5, and as the information the information documented in Update 6 revealed, we now know that Martin:
(1) Was caught by school officials destroying property (graffiti);
(2) Was caught by school officials with a baggie with marijuana traces and a pot pipe.
(3) Was caught by school officials with twelve pieces of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver in his backpack.
(4) Was suspended from school for truancy.
(5) Was serving a ten-day suspension, likely for trying to assault a bus driver (this was suggested by comments of friends on his twitter account). This would have been his fourth suspension.
(6) Was carrying a cigarette lighter when he was killed, but not cigarettes.
There is some suggestion that Martin’s entire school disciplinary record has not been released, and whether he had a juvenile arrest record is currently not known. An attempt to attack a bus driver would certainly be worthy of a ten-day suspension, which would likely have been a final step before expulsion. These documents will likely eventually turn up in the course of discovery and other pre-trial maneuvers, but for now, the principals of Martin’s school apparently choose not to prosecute him, but to handle his infractions in-house. This is not unusual and was fortunate for Martin and his parents.
We now know that Ms. Fulton was not completely forthcoming. His destruction of property and possession of marijuana and paraphernalia were clearly crimes. It is true that he was not charged with or convicted of those crimes, but he Martin did break the law. Martin appears to have been fortunate that he was not turned over to the police for those crimes. His possession of marijuana at the time of his death is likewise a clear violation of Florida law. And if it is confirmed that he attempted to assault a bus driver—or did—that would certainly be an act of violence and a crime as well. Notice that I’m not mentioning what might well be possession of stolen property and/or involvement in burglary or theft relating to the jewelry.
In addition, Martin’s Twitter account depicts a young man caught up in thug life, with all of its posturing, misogyny, threats, drug use, criminal inclinations and yes, violence. As I noted in Update 5, The Daily Caller has a compilation of 152 of those tweets, apparently long since sanitized and removed from circulation. For those who have not seen this side of Trayvon Martin, a visit will be revealing indeed.
It would stretch the boundaries of credibility to believe that the Martin family, particularly following Trayvon’s death, were not made aware of all of these issues, including the autopsy result, and were not aware of their criminal nature. While any person of good will feels for the Martin family, while it’s not hard to understand that any parent of a deceased child would want to remember their child, and have them portrayed in the best possible light, it must be recognized that they have a strong vested interest in the narrative. A great many people are actively hustling to ensure that they stay on the narrow narrative path.
ADDITIONAL ACCUSATIONS:
In Update 6 I also wrote about Martin’s girlfriend, identified only as “DeeDee” to date. The Sanford Police did not interview her as she was initially unknown to them. Apparently they did ask the Martin family for the PIN code to his phone so that they could identify any potentially pertinent calls, but the Martin family, acting on the advice of their attorney, did not provide that information.
I do not know from whom the Orlando Sentinel received its information on this girl’s statement, whether it was from the Martin family lawyers, their agents, or the investigators of the special prosecutor. However it is known that transcripts of the 911 recording were released to the public before she made any statement. It is therefore possible that her “recollection” of events may have been influenced by that, and/or persons unknown. Here’s what I wrote:
The Orlando Sentinel also wrote:
An unnamed girl, the one identified by the Martin family attorney as Trayvon’s girlfriend [to date, referred to as “DeeDee”], may be one of the case’s most important witnesses. She told prosecutors that she and Trayvon talked by cellphone on and off as he went to the store that evening.
She said Trayvon told her a white man in a vehicle was watching him. Trayvon started walking, and the call cut off, she said. When she called back,’he said this man is still following him.’
The girl said Trayvon started running, ‘and then he said he lost him [Zimmerman],’ she said, adding that the teen’s ‘voice kind of changed … I could tell he was scared. And in a couple minutes, he said a man’s following him again.’
She said Trayvon asked, ‘Why are you following me for?’ and a man’s voice said, ‘What are you doing around here?’ Then she heard a noise, and the call cut off.
ANALYSIS:
Ms. Corey apparently believes that this girl’s statement has great significance. If so, that significance will be confined to the court of public and political opinion, for it too supports Zimmerman’s account.
The call confirms that Martin knew he was being watched and that he ran from Zimmerman. However, the time frame is unknown, and the number of calls made, their duration, and who made them and when is also unknown.
Most interesting, and most damaging to the prosecution, is Martin’s demand of Zimmerman and Zimmerman’s question in reply. Zimmerman was clearly trying to identify Martin and determine what he was doing in the neighborhood. The “noise” DeeDee heard was most likely Martin’s fist breaking Zimmerman’s nose, and the call went dead as Martin dropped his phone to jump on top of the prostrate and stunned Zimmerman, the better to beat him with both fists as the witness to the attack reported.
I suspect that if it is possible to establish a reliable time frame, it will parallel that of the 911 call, and make clear that Zimmerman wasn’t “following” Martin. Zimmerman believed he lost Martin. Seeing Zimmerman walking back toward his vehicle, Martin might have interpreted that as being followed and approached and confronted Zimmerman. Readers might want to refresh their memories of the scene with the maps provided in Update 4.
DeeDee will be a very dangerous witness for the prosecution. Her recitation of what she was told by Martin is not hearsay; she will almost certainly be allowed to testify to what he told her and to what she heard, but as Martin’s girlfriend, she would be likely to have direct knowledge of his drug use and any potentially criminal escapades. If she appears to be covering for Martin in the slightest way, she will do far more harm than good to the prosecution, and Mr. O’Mara will almost certainly be able to elicit testimony damaging to the prosecution from her. Her testimony will open that door to O’Mara. Did Martin talk about having to hide his stash? Did he tell DeeDee he was high? Did he tell her he intended to attack Zimmerman? Her tweets to Martin and his replies to her will almost certainly be used to impeach her as well.
If Ms. Corey truly does see DeeDee as a case-making witness, her professional judgment and competence are very much in question.
The Associated Press, via Fox News, wrote:
Two acquaintances paint an unflattering picture of Zimmerman in police interviews.
A distraught woman tells an investigator that she stays away from Zimmerman because he’s racist and because of things he’s done to her in the past, but she didn’t elaborate on what happened between them.
‘I don’t at all know who this kid was or anything else. But I know George, and I know that he does not like black people. He would start something. He’s very confrontational. It’s in his blood. We’ll just say that,’ the unidentified woman says in an audio recording.
A man whose name was deleted from the audio told investigators said he worked with Zimmerman in 2008 for a few months. It wasn’t clear which company it was.
The man, who described his heritage as ‘Middle Eastern,’ said that when he first started many employees didn’t like him. Zimmerman seized on this, the employee said, and bullied him.
As this is the first I’ve heard of this unidentified “Middle Eastern” man who felt that Zimmerman made fun of him some four years before the Martin shooting, it’s difficult to comment. Whether the special prosecutor’s investigators have been out beating the bushes for any potentially negative information about Zimmerman, or whether this unknown person called them and volunteered this information is also unknown, but certainly important information. Considering the distance in time involved and the lack of specific relevance to the case, it is unlikely this, or any similar, witness would be allowed to testify.
However, enough is known about the “distraught woman,” identified by the AP to comment. Mr. Dershowitz makes the point:
Speaking of doing their job, the New York Times’ ‘reporting’ on the case has been generally biased against Zimmerman. It has suggested that if the police had done their job properly the evidence would point to Zimmerman’s guilt. Moreover, it included in its reporting an inflammatory item of uncorroborated gossip. This is what it said:
‘The reports may give rise to other mysteries as well, including the identity of a woman who called another investigator, less than two full days after the shooting.
The woman refused to identify herself or give any callback numbers, but told the investigator that Mr. Zimmerman ‘has racist ideologies and that he is fully capable of instigating a confrontation that could have escalated to the point of Zimmerman having to use deadly force.’
This information comes from the heavily redacted police report filed by Investigator Christopher Serino:
Sanford Police Department Report, PDF, Serino
The circled text reads:
On 02/28/2012, Investigator Terkell Perkins received a telephone call from an unidentified female. This female, who refused to provide her name, call back number, or any other thye of contact information, disclosed to Inv. Perkins that George Zimmerman has racial ideologies, and that he is fully capable of instigating a confrontation that could have escalated to the point of Zimmerman having to use deadly force. Inv. Perkins was able to record a portion of this conversation with this anonymous female and said recording was placed on a compact disc and submitted as evidence. No other information has been obtained to corroborate this anonymous female’s information and her identity has not been established.
Notice the heavily redacted text–this is common in all of the materials released for public consumption–and the most important sentence, completely ignored by the New York Times and other media:
No other information has been obtained to corroborate this anonymous female’s information. . .
Indeed. In fact, all other information regarding Zimmerman’s racial inclinations has been quite the opposite. He is, after all, part black.
It will likely surprise no one that The New York Times is presenting utterly unsubstantiated gossip, and what could easily be a plant—a lie—as fact. After all, it supports the narrative. But such “evidence,” simply isn’t. If the prosecution is planning to use statements of this kind against Zimmerman, they’re in for quite a shock. It is highly unlikely they’d be allowed. They simply aren’t related to the issues of the case, there is no foundation for their inclusion, and I can’t imagine any competent judge allowing them. However, this might be an indication of the quality of “evidence” the special prosecutor possesses. As Mr. Dershowitz put it in an April 25th article by Greg Wilson on Fox News:
Legal legend Alan Dershowitz blasted the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case, accusing her of hiding evidence favorable to defendant George Zimmerman and committing perjury.
‘If I were this prosecutor, I’d be hiring a lawyer at this point.’
Time will tell if Ms. Corey replays the mistakes of Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. The Trayvon Martin case is beginning to look, more and more, like that sorry chapter in American jurisprudence. There is never a lack of room in the annals of disgraced, overzealous, politicized prosecutors.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
As Alan Dershowitz and others have observed, there appears to be no case against Zimmerman that will meet the requirements of Florida law and that can overcome an unusually well supported and powerful self-defense claim. The rational, ethical thing to do would be to drop the case.
Perhaps, however, Corey actually believes that there is evidence somewhere out there that will overturn or at least, overshadow, all of the currently known evidence and that will allow her to prevail. Perhaps she means to draw out the proceedings as long as possible in the hope of finding that elusive evidence. Or perhaps she simply intends to push for as long and hard as possible in the hope that she can somehow sell the narrative to a jury. Considering the political and social climate, it is possible she’ll have that opportunity.
However, even if Corey should win a conviction, it is highly likely–a virtual certainty–the case will be overturned on appeal. Of course, by that time, if George Zimmerman is jailed, he may not survive to see his eventual vindication.
No matter how it is considered, this case is a tragedy for all involved. Angela Corey would be wise–and just–to end it now and prevent even greater tragedy for more families in the future. The law and the facts are against her, and she has essentially turned the Sanford Police against her as well.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
What a mess.
You make some interesting points, that would have alot more impact if I couldn’t see you point your toes and stretch your entire body as you reach for things to be there that are not.
While these little grenades of lies litter your update, I only have to look at the first line to see you are starting down a road that exists in your own mind.
“(1) A Sanford Police Investigator wanted, at some point, to see Zimmerman charged with manslaughter, therefore he must be guilty and must be convicted of second degree murder.”
This would be more accurately stated as “(1) A Sanford Police Investigator wanted, at some point, to see Zimmerman charged with manslaughter, [someone with a far better view than you or I felt Zimmerman should have to answer for his actions. The way we do that in this country is through a trial.]
Your narrative depends upon the false assumption that those unhappy with the way things were handled in this case have already decided his guilt. That is your grand fallacy. You need to believe that since you have already found Martin guilty of numerous offenses (smoking pot that night, assaulting a bus driver) those who don’t subscribe to your fantasy do so because they are just as closed minded as you, just from the other direction.
We we calling for Zimmerman to answer to a jury. Whatever happens from there is acceptable to anyone with faith in our system of justice, which is why we have moved on. Which is why you haven’t.
One last thing. “You never told me you robbed that liquor store and shot the clerk,” Does that mean you failed to tell me about your criminal actions, or that you didn’t tell me because you didn’t rob that liqour store and shoot the clerk?”
Someone stating Trayvon didn’t tell her he hit a bus driver is the most empty argument on your bare shelf.
But you keep on defending Zimmerman. He is clearly someone you admire and that is the most satisfying thing you are dishing out.
Dear CCCC:
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. May I ask that if you are going to accuse me of littering my article with lies, you point out, specifically, precisely which lies I’ve told? I’d appreciate that and I’m sure my readers would too.
The two primary legal issues in this case are quite simple, but have been ignored by the media. They are: (1) Is there sufficient probable cause to charge Zimmerman with a specific crime? To do this, all of the elements of the crime must be fulfilled by reference to specific evidence. The Prosecution has utterly failed to do this in its charging affidavit. (2) If Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense is valid, under Florida law, there can be no prosecution and no civil suit may be filed against Zimmerman. If there is no probable cause, and if self-defense is present–and I argue that there is no PC and that Zimmerman’s self-defense argument is unusually strong–then the case must, under the law, be dismissed. Trial by jury has nothing to do with it.
Please remember that I have nearly 2 decades of police experience. I can assure you that it’s a good thing police officers have older, wiser and more experienced supervisors, because they are not perfect, and being human, can often arrest people under the “lock’em up and let the courts sort ’em out” theory. This is an abuse of power and a dereliction of duty. One investigator did want to charge Zimmerman with a lesser offense, but wiser heads prevailed, and that’s where it would have stood had racial politics not taken precedence.
Please reread my comments regarding the potential assault on a bus driver. I have never presented that as absolute fact, but as a possibility that explains otherwise unexplained circumstances.
As to admiration, I don’t know anyone involved in this case. I admire no one. I only present the facts as they are currently known–keep in mind at least 50% of the evidence has not been made public–and try to present a rational analysis of those facts.
trayvon was not found with marijuana, the autopsy report said they found small amounts of marijuana in his system which means he could’ve smoked it days before, you just stated that they found it on him which is not true. and just like zimmerman, trayvon maybe committed crimes but was not convicted, you failed to mention, the two crimes zimmerman was charged with, maybe assaulting a police officer, domestic violence against an ex-girlfriend. More will come to light when the judge turns down the motions to keep statements and text messages private, because you better believe Angela Corey has sumthing and Zimmerman is going to convict himself.
Dear Hoodie:
If you read a bit more carefully, you’ll see that I was careful to state that the evidence of marijuana possession was in Martin’s blood and urine, however I also wrote that having the drug in one’s blood and urine was possession every bit as much as having an ounce in a baggie in their pocket. The amount in Martin’s blood in the coroner’s report indicates clearly that he would be considered intoxicated for the purposes of driving in several states, which indicates recent consumption. As I also noted, the fact that the urine levels have not yet been released is suspicious and probably indicates levels so high that the inescapable conclusion is that Martin was smoking pot shortly before he died. If you’ll read Update 9 this Friday, you’ll see additional evidence to suggest that this is precisely what he was doing.
I have, in earlier updates, mentioned the difficulties Zimmerman had years ago. Again, the motion to keep some evidence sealed is joined by the prosecution and the defense. As to Ms. Corey and her evidence, I’ve repeatedly observed that it is possible that there is as yet unrevealed evidence that will tend to be harmful to Zimmerman, but everything we know to date is quite the opposite. Knowing the workings of such things as I do, I suspect Ms. Corey doesn’t have anything–the affidavit she filed would certainly indicate just that.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment.
Hello Mike- I have been reading your analytical articles concerning the Zimmerman/Martin case for the last few weeks, and have very much appreciated your search for facts and truth, rather than the propaganda that has been dished out by the LSM. Thank you, every voice of reason helps.
One tiny bit of a heads up, not as though it is required or necessary, but there has been a person running around the web, to any site that writes about this case, in a rational and truth seeking manner, that doesn’t always paint Trayvon Martin as the innocent child many want you to believe he was. This person, has claimed to be an FBI agent, and threatens to report everyone he disagrees with to the FBI. He gets banned under one handle, and then keeps popping up with a different handle. It’s like playing whack a mole.
You wrote about the “distraught woman” who supposedly called the SPD, and claimed that Zimmerman was a racist, and that he doesn’t like black people. As you pointed out, the Det. Serino report mentions this incident, but then goes on to say that no one has ever been identified as the caller. I am very curious why that call was even mentioned in Serino’s report? I am curious as to who made the call to admit the partial tape into evidence? The report doesn’t indicate that. Is it not true that Police Departments, all over the nation, get anonymous calls, probably many times daily? What would have made this particular call so unique to add it into a police report, and cause someone to admit a partial tape of the call into evidence in this case? What could possibly be the motive to admit this as evidence? As you said, it could very well have been a planted call. Yes, I know it fits the narrative that Zimmerman is a racist, but still. It isn’t the job of the police to inject any racial angle in any case they are investigating, period.
I have a few questions, but will ask them in separate posts.
You have talked about the Zimmerman injury photos here on this article, and I believe you have mentioned them before. As to the injury photos, go back to the prosecution discovery statements by various LEO’s.
On page 18 of the documents, there is a report from Officer Michael Wagner. The report is dated 3/24/12. In part, he says-
“I walked to Officer Smith’s car where Zimmerman was sitting and in handcuffs, and used my I Phone (due to lack of access to a digital camera) to take a picture of Zimmerman’s face. I saw that Zimmerman’s face was bloodied, and it appeared to me that his nose was broken. I also saw that the back of Zimmerman’s head was also bloodied. I also walked to where Martin lay on the ground, and took a photo of Martin’s face as well. I observed no physical injury to Martin.”
He adds an addendum at the bottom of his report-
“On 3/18/12 I received info from Officer Smith that no photo existed of Zimmerman with his injuries. I then emailed both photos to Inv. Serino. Inv. Serino then requested that I submit this narrative with my involvement in this case.”
On page 20, included in Inv. Chris Serino’s report, he writes in part-
“On 2/26/12, at approximately 2321 hours, I again met with CST Smith, officers and investigators, and I observed CST Smith take photographs of the subjects injuries, hands, collect possible gun shot residue using a GSR kit. This took place in (SPD) interview room 2.” (Serino is obviously talking about Zimmerman)
If Serino observed Officer Smith taking photos on 2/26/12, the night of the incident, of Zimmerman’s injuries, and that would have been after he was cleaned up by the paramedics, why would Officer Wagner have gotten information on 3/18/12 claiming that Officer Smith had no photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries? Didn’t Serino write that he observed Smith taking those photos on the night of the incident?
I’m having a hard time trying to make sense of those claims.
This seems to be your bias version of everything. Let’s see what the jurors think when they see all of the evidence presented in trial. Oh by the way, would you be screaming for help if you were packing a 9 mm gun? No, you would be looking for trouble, like Zimmerman was. Who in their right mind takes a loaded gun to Target?
And the Marijuana claim? The kid had it in his system, but there is no evidence that he had it on his person OR dumped it. How can you make such a claim?
You can’t make an argument that because Trayvon didn’t have pot in his poket or in his hands as not being on his person. You urine and your blood are a part of your person. You can’t seperate the outer body from the inner body. Pot being in someone’s system is the same as it being a part of his person.
Sandy, he’s is suggesting that part of the reason for Trayvon running was because He had marijuana in his PHYSICAL possession and he fled because he may have suspected Zimmerman might have been a cop. That is an outrageous claim. Everyone knows he had traces in his system, but there is absolutely NO proof of him having any on him.
Dear Luis:
Hello, and thanks for your comment. If you’ll reread a bit more carefully, you’ll find that I proposed this as a possibility, not an absolute certainty. I’m not claiming that’s exactly what happened, but presenting it merely as a scenario that might serve to explain Martin’s actions that night. And regarding Martin being in possession of pot, Sandy is quite right. In your bloodstream or in your pocket, it’s possession and it’s illegal.
George Zimmerman had a legal concealed carry permit. What good would having a gun do if you didn’t take it with you when you were out of your home. There have been many cases of people being shot at malls, gas stations, restaurants, etc. If you have a gun for your personal protection, what good would it do you, if you didn’t have it with you, if you were ever attacked?
I’ve looked at the crime rate, as per government reporting, and Sanford Fla. is the 3rd least safe city in the country. It is even more crime ridden than any other city in the state, including Miami. On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the safest area, Sanford comes in at 3.
E. D.- You ask why anyone would take a loaded weapon to Target. Here is a link to an article which would answer your question.
A woman was just browsing in a Target store in TX. She felt something behind her, and then was stabbed in the back with a butcher knife. The attacker took the butcher knife out of it’s packaging, and used it to stab the woman. He didn’t take her pocketbook, and she had never seen him before.
If you were walking through a Target store, or any store for that matter, and were stabbed in the back, would you wish you had a concealed weapon on you. He could very easily have severed her spine.
Much has been made of the girlfriend DeeDee’s statements, and interviews. At one point I read that she claimed that Trayvon’s earbuds fell out, but she could still hear background noises, like the grass. It would appear that the earbuds, and where they were found would be quite important to her claims.
In the discover documents, Officer Raimondo, one of the first on the scene that night, when attempting to do CPR, said he noticed a large cold can in the victim’s center shirt pocket. He doesn’t say that he removed the can. Another officer, Stacy McCoy, arriving on the scene when CPR was taking place, said she observed a package of Skittles in the front pocket of the victims sweatshirt. She went on to write that she also observed a can of Arizona Iced Tea and a pair of ear phones in close proximity to the victims body. She said that scattered nearby she observed a small flashlight, a cell phone, and car keys with a small flashlight.
If the Iced Tea can was laying in close proximity to the body, along with the ear phones, and everything else was scattered, wouldn’t that indicate that the ear phones were taken out of the center pocket, along with the Iced Tea?
I believe in one police report, it stated that the ear phones were removed from the victim’s pocket, and another report just claims they were gathered up with all of the other evidence, after photos were taken. I did not see anything that was marked with an evidence marker, claiming that anything was a pair of ear phones.
In any case, the ear phones were not attached to the cell phone when the incident happened. How could DeeDee claim that she was on the phone with Trayvon until just moments before he died? The 911 tapes recorded of those witnesses that were calling in as the incident was happening, were reporting a struggle/fight, and the approx. 14 screams for help, before the gunshot, were recorded.
There can be no possibility that DeeDee was on the phone with Trayvon during the most critical period in the entire incident. There is no recording of DeeDee’s phone call with Trayvon. Listening to DeeDee’s many versions of the phone calls causes me to want to see her on the witness stand, if this case ever reaches a trial.
Phone records would probably prove that and I’m sure they will be admitted as evidence to back up the girlfriend’s claim.
Even with phone records, which the Martin’s atty Crump has already put out there shows a phone call coming into Trayvons phone at 7:12 from the area where DeeDee lives. On the same page as that phone call, T Mobile states that all calls are recorded in Pacific time. I’m still not clear on that. There is still no recording of what was said between the two. It is a matter of he said, she said, as to DeeDee’s accounting of the conversation. DeeDee has not been consistent with what she has claimed from one interview to the next. No matter, she was not on the phone with Tayvon during the critical time period in the incident. The state has still not been able to prove who started the fight, or who it was screaming on the 911 tape. One of the two lead detectives admitted to those facts while under oath.
Why wouldn’t “Dee Dee’s” testimony be hearsay to the extent she is testifying about what Trayvon Martin said about the events that night as opposed to what she observed first hand? My recollection is that hearsay is an out of court statement by another that is being offered up for the truth of the statement. I wouldn’t think that any of the hearsay exceptions would apply.
I am a law grad. Dont know Florida law but under the federal rules, which most states use, the girlfriend’s testimony of what Tvon “told her” is clearly hearsay-
The only time you can testify to what another person “told you” is when that the person is available in court for cross examination. You cannot cross examine a person who is not in court, and the US constitution guarantees defendants the right to cross examine all witnesses against them
Dear Daniel Cucich:
Indeed, but you’re relying on the law as it actually applies in a court of justice. We’re dealing with the law as it applies, first and foremost, to the court of public opinion. As I’ve noted, Special Prosecutor Corey would be insane to want to put this girl on the stand in the first place. If she tries, she’ll no doubt try to make some kind of exception argument, and O’Mara might go along with it just to watch her–and the prosecution’s case–explode in open court. Little about this case makes legal sense.
Sorry for all the posts Mike, but this is my last, but most important point.
Within the Chris Serino report, submitted with the prosecution evidence, Serino makes this statement-
“Investigation reveals that on Aug. 3, Aug. 4, Oct. 6, and Feb. 2, George Zimmerman reported suspicious persons, ALL YOUNG BLACK MALES in the Retreat neighborhood to the SPD. According to records checks, all Zimmerman’s calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified BLACK MALES as the suspects. (Emphasis mine)
Early on, we read that Zimmerman made numerous calls to 911, something like 30-40. I’ve read various accounts of some of his calls, including that he called at one time to report that a neighbor’s garage door was open, the neighbor was not home, and that it was not like the neighbor to leave the door open. Perhaps that can be seen as a nusance (sp) call for sure, some of the others were similar. How can anyone, in good conscience, state in a police report, that “ALL” of Zimmerman’s calls to the SPD identified black males?
I believe you have linked the Reuters article here, which goes into detail of some of the 911 calls that Zimmerman made. On Aug. 3, that was the day that the young women, home alone with her infant, ran to an upstairs bathroom to hide, after she saw 2 young black males, breaking into her patio sliding door, and were caught running out the back door with TV’s, etc.
In the same time period, some roofers working in the area, reported seeing young black males that were previously seen there. It just so happened that one of those black males was in fact someone reported by Zimmerman just a day or so before, and he was found with stolen items, and then I presume arrested.
Look at the Retreat newsletters that were included in the discovery. The Sept. issue states that there were in fact 3 break-ins, and a vandalism, just in the month before that newsletter. They state that there was an increase in crime, not just an increase in sightings of black males as Serino seems to indicate. The police reports themselves indicate an increase in crime at the Retreat complex, not just an increase in 911 calls as to sightings. The woman with the child who had to hide in a bathroom stated that they were calling the SPD at least once a week. A woman from the complex, interviewed, who did not want her name revealed said something to the effect- “Look let’s face it, I’m black, but the 800 lb elephant here is the fact that it has been young black males who are doing the break-ins here.”
I’ve wondered if Det. Chris Serino hasn’t been the leaker, or unnamed police source mentioned in many articles, and in statements made by the various members of the Crump team. They seem to have an awful lot of information, which sounds very similar to some of Serino’s statements in his discovery report. Why would Serino, include the racial remarks about Zimmerman only reporting black males, when that knowingly would only cause more racial tension, in an already racially tense situation? Because his statement can easily be disproven, it is no more useful than saying that the situation could have been avoided if Zimmerman had just stayed in his truck.
It is my personal humble opinion that Serino has been willingly aiding and abetting the false narrative being trumped up by the unethical and illegal prosecution team. He apparently has an agenda that is yet to be seen. I would bet that when this case completely collapses, Serino will be one of the first to be thrown under the bus.
Dear Sandy:
Thanks for reading and for your cogent points! It has obviously been the experience of the residents of Zimmerman’s neighborhood that young, predominantly black, men have been committing burglary and theft there. This isn’t evidence of racism, but of the demographic nature of crime in that area. If I’m recalling correctly, about half the residents of the neighborhood are black as well. I’m sure some would like to ignore the fact that when Zimmerman made his 911 call, he didn’t make that call because Martin was black–he wasn’t sure of his race until well into the call–but because of his behavior and the circumstances.
I’ll be addressing many of the issues you’ve raised in future updates, but as to Mr. Serino, if he is feeding information to anyone, he would be in deep trouble in any law enforcement agency. Such behavior–if it is happening–would be unethical, unprofessional, and in many cases, criminal. Of course, I have no evidence that this is the case, and I haven’t studied the released documents in sufficient depth to venture an opinion, but you raise some interesting and disturbing possibilities.
I’ve not written a great deal about “DeeDee,” because we know very little about her. I have not seen any actual statement, either written, recorded or transcribed, and until I do, it wouldn’t be helpful to go beyond my general points in this update. Please keep in mind that in crime scene investigations, unless all of the officers involved carefully coordinate all of their actions and statements, what might appear to be contradictions can easily crop up. These usually don’t indicate malfeasance, merely many people pursuing different tasks with different goals.
As to the distraught woman, I too would have documented the call merely to be complete and to prove that I was compiling all potential evidence. Note that he also said that no other similar evidence was discovered. At least for now, I’m not seeing any clear evidence of bias of any kind in the SPD reports, but again, I haven’t gone over them with a fine toothed comb.
Again, thanks so much for your kind comments, and for answering some of the other readers. Most entertaining!
I appreciate your extensive research! Yet a few claims you made just ruined it, marijuana in his system? If Trayvon had “gone straight home,” or ” had not called his girlfriend so many times.” what does that have to do with anything? You are telling me when I walk home from my local 7-11 (which I do) I need to go straight home and not call my girlfriend because why?? Intact I live in colorado and get VERY high. The last thing I’d do being high is take on a crazy Hispanic dude that is twice my age. Maybe when you get high it’s different but marijuana isn’t like alcohol and makes you feel crazier/stronger/ ready to fight. Zimmerman bias article and that jerk Harvard professor has some weird issue for speaking so loudly about why a wanna be cop with a gun should e acquitted of his charges because he doesn’t “see” 2nd degree murder. Let alone killed someone who could be his kids age.
What Mike was pointing out with his “what if” statements, such as saying “what if Trayvon went straight home from the 711” was just pointing out that there can be hundreds or thousands of “what if’s” on both sides of the argument. Det. Serino included the statement in his report “what if Zimmerman didn’t get out of his truck”?
What if Trayvon hadn’t gone to Sanford, and remained at his home in Miami?
What if Trayvon hadn’t been suspended from school?
What if Trayvon decided to not walk a great distance just for an Iced Tea and a bag of Skittles?
What if George Zimmerman didn’t decide to go out to shop?
What if George Zimmerman sat in his vehicle, and Trayvon decided to attack him in his vehicle?
What if Angela Corey hadn’t decided to put her whole legal career on the line with her overcharging?
What if Angela Corey didn’t decide to prosecute a 12 year old boy as an adult, and charge him with pre-meditated first degree murder, which carries a sentence of life in prison?
I’m sure you could come up with a very long list of your own what-if’s. The point is that adding that what-if wording to a police report is useless, and will likely never be allowed in a court trial. It only manages to further inflame the narrative against Zimmerman, and gives the media a bumper sticker type thought to latch onto. In the end, it was inflammatory and completely unnecessary, and unbecoming the behavior/actions of a LEO.
What Sandy said.
Dear Andrew P.:
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. If you reread a bit more carefully, you’ll find that the “what ifs” I listed were done to point out (1) What ifs aren’t acceptable testimony in court, because (2) All manner of what ifs might have come to pass under some set of circumstances. Mr. Dershowitz is speaking to Florida law and legal ethics, as am I. Neither of us “see” second degree murder because the affidavit charging it did not fulfill the elements of the statute, and Florida law regarding self-defense is also involved. It is the letter of the law that dooms this prosecution, not anyone’s opinion of anyone involved.
Outstanding as usual Mike.
Great analysis throughout.
Best regards.
Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
If you’ve been following the Martin/Zimmerman case, then you need to head on over and get some great analysis from Mike McDaniel. This is part 7, all parts of this are excellent reads.
Last week I clicked on the Washington Post website which had an anti-Zimmerman column. Also shown, but not mentioned, was an aerial view of part of the gated community where Trayvon’s body location was specified. . Perhaps a hundred yards away was the location of Zimmerman’s truck. Am I seeing things, since nobody else has mentioned this very crucial evidence as to who was stalking who?
Oops, I checked the location of Trayvon’s body as to Zimmerman’s truck and the body was apparently about 400 yards (not 100) from the truck, about midway between his father’s house and the truck. Sorry.
Dear Armin:
Thank you for taking the time to read and for your question. May I suggest you visit Update 4, which deals with this issue? While those pushing the narrative have maintained the belief that Zimmerman was stalking or actively chasing Martin, the evidence–and the law–do not support these notions.
Thanks again!
Nicely done. Once I saw a diagram of the community and saw how close TM was to being home when GZ and TM spotted spotted each other, it was clear that TM had ample time to make it to his dad’s gf’s house well before GZ even finished his 911 call, but TM didn’t do that for some reason. Also, I’ve seen news reports and blog comments suggesting that GZ’s injuries aren’t that bad. Sorry, but if your head is struck hard enough to cause blood to stream down the back of your head from two locations, I think that will be plenty for the judge or a jury to conclude that GZ had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of suffering at least serious bodily harm. My bet is that after the smoke clears, we’ll see that the sanford police and the initial prosecutor investigated the matter thoroughly, gathered the necessary and relevant facts, and made the right call in concluding that the evidence was consistent GZ’s description of the events and his claim of self defense. What a huge waste of resources with over zealous special prosecutors and trials and the justice dept and FBI spending time on this.
I heard commentators speak in glowing terms about TM’s parents and how they are handling all this with so much grace and dignity. Have you seen the website, and the donation pages and the TM Foundation and how the parents will be paid employees of the foundation? Geez. I’m sure they have real grief over the loss of their son, but all this donation/foundation stuff is in my opinion exploiting the tragedy of his death for personal gain, and I see nothing gracious or dignified in how they are acting now. How can you in good conscious set up a “Justice” for Trayvon Foundation in the face of physical evidence showing that the kid most likely criminally attacked and beat a man who then shot the kid in self-defense? Where’s the cause that you’re fighting for? What exactly is the “this” that you are trying to make sure does not happen again? And I really don’t need to see a Mother’s Day Video from S Fulton. Well, congratulations, you’re a full blown celebrity now. I’m afr amer and I think the foundation and the donation page and trademark applications and speaking engagements are all shameful.
What would have happened if the police had arrived two and a half minutes earlier?
Suppose the police halted the fight, while it was still in progress. All witness testimony should have been identical to their current testimony, except for the absence of the gun shot which killed Trayvon Martin.
If either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman had alleged that the other had attacked them, would there be enough evidence for the state to pursue assault charges against either or both?
Could a responsible jury convict either of assault, on the publicly available evidence?
I believe that in a criminal trial, each defendant would be entitled to the presumption of innocence and that there is insufficient evidence to prove the guilt of either, regardless of what one may believe actually happened.
Dear John:
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. It’s much appreciated. In any assault case, the police would virtually never arrest both people, at least not for assault. They would determine the primary aggressor and charge them, treating the other person as a victim. If they felt both were engaged in mutual combat, they might charge both with disturbing the peace or some similar offense, but any decision would be based on the law in their jurisdiction.
Following up on your what if–for the sake of illuminating the way police officers think–if Martin survived the encounter, he would almost certainly have been charged with assault given the evidence as we currently know it. Zimmerman would have been considered the victim.
Thanks again!
I am interested in how the police could (reliably) determine the primary aggressor.
Suppose that the police had interupted the “fight”, while it was still in progress.
Zimmerman says: ” I was attacked by a thug, who sucker-punched me”.
Martin says: “This thug tried to attack me, but he picked a fight with the wrong guy. Thankfully, I learned to defend myself.”
Doubtless the policemen would have their own opinion about the likely role of each party. However, not all opinions can be proved in court. Also, on some occasions, the police will be wrong, despite what the evidence or common sense suggests.
Dear John:
Good question. Of course in this case, if they interrupted the “fight,” they’d find Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him senseless, and all physical evidence–and probably witness statements–would point to Martin as the primary aggressor. As you correctly surmise, such things aren’t always easy, but that’s why we pay the police the big bucks. Sometimes, they merely take a complete report and tell the combatants they’ll forward it to the prosecutor’s office for charges. That gets everybody off the streets for the night, and the police know the prosecutor won’t file charges on anyone, and then it will be up to them to explain it to the combatants if they bother to ask.
It’s been a few days since I visited here and I had to suppress a chuckle when I saw the title of the post. I was just over at Bob Owens blog and used the ‘narrative’ meme as well. All data that interferes with the narrative gets ignored by Martin’s fans and anyone who doesn’t toe the line of the narrative is some kind of racist hatemonger. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated by many.
Dear Nevada Steve:
Thanks so much for your kind comment. More coming on May 30 and June 1.
if george zimmerman is such a good guy why does omara want to keep text messages and emails sent after zimmerman thought he was scott free private until the trial. i think he made some racial remarks. they had no problem releasing those minor injuries, why cant we see what he said when he thought nothing would come of trayvon being killed
Trayvon was not breaking the law – stop with that nonsense. Did the ME find trace amounts of THC in Trayvon’s bloodstream? Yes. Does it have any bearing on why Zimmerman followed him? No. Does it in any way relate to why Zimmerman left his car? No. Does it in any way relate to why Zimmerman was running and searching for Trayvon – who contrary to what you claim – was walking? No. Was Zimmerman anywhere near his truck as early supporters tried to claim? No. He killed Trayvon after Trayvon had made it most of the way home.
Walking home from the store is not suspicious. Neighbourhood watch are instructed to not carry guns. Zimmerman has a violent past – Trayvon does not. Trayvon’s girlfriend’s testimony and phone logs show Zimmerman laid hands on Trayvon first – witnesses who viewed fight after it began show that Trayvon turned the tables on Zimmerman and was winning the fight. George shot and killed and unarmed teen because he was losing a fight he started.
That’s a crime.
Dear Randy Pare’:
Thanks for taking the time to comment, but may I suggest you reread a bit more carefully? Martin had more than trace amounts in his blood and urine, more than enough to be considered under the influence for the purposes of driving in several states. As much as some would like to ignore it, this factor is very significant indeed in this case. You also state a number of things as fact that simply aren’t. All known evidence indicates clearly that Martin was running, not walking, and if you’ll only take the time to read Update 9 which will be posted on Friday, you’ll see that the “scuffle,” as the prosecutor terms it, took place precisely where Zimmerman said it did, something under a city block from Martin’s temporary home; not anywhere near it. In this case, you’ll be able to believe your eyes.
In that update–and I’ve mentioned this possibility–there is compelling evidence to suggest Martin’s interest and/or involvement in violence and substantial drug use. And as to the idea that it was Zimmerman who started the fight, again, may I suggest you begin with the first article in this series and read the evolving evidence. There is simply no evidence to support your contention.
Again, thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 9: Of Tea and Skittles and Blunts « Stately McDaniel Manor
Having now read the latest batch of document disclosures (see, eg, http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1) and FBI reports, it seems another explanation for the “fucking coon” comment might make sense.
If you look at page 116 of the latest document release, you’ll see (in an FBI memo) that there are several gangs in the Sanford area that use the name “Goons”, and that these gangs are known to choose layered clothing and hoodies as a common manner of dress. I’m not sure it’s clear how much knowledge Zimmerman had about the local gangs, but if he knew about them and suspected (based upon Martin’s style of dress and behavior) that Trayvon was a gang member, could Zimmerman in fact have said “fucking goons”? That doesn’t seem implausible to me.
Chris Serino’s FBI interview (page 124 of the PDF) is rather interesting, too. In particular, Serino told the FBI that he “believed ZIMMERMAN’s actions were not based on MARTIN’s skin color rather based on his attire, the total circumstances of the encounter and the previous burglary suspects in the community.” And, he says that he views Zimmerman “as having a ‘little hero complex’, but not as a racist.”
Dear Tammy:
Hello and thanks for your comment! Actually, what Zimmerman said was that it was “fucking cold.” If you’ll visit Update 5, you’ll find what you need to reasonably assure yourself that’s what he said. The fact that the Lamestream media has completely dropped that line of attack is also reasonable evidence that it was farcical rather than factual in the first place.
I’ve no doubt Zimmerman took into account Martin’s hoodie in formulating his observation that he looked suspicious. Criminals in Florida and elsewhere often wear hoodies. However, there is no question that Zimmerman was commenting on the cold.
What’s particularly interesting about Serino’s comment is that he knows that lying to an FBI agent is a federal crime, so he does indeed change the tenor–if not the complete substance–of his opinion of Zimmerman in that statement. I’ll be discussing this and similar matters in a new post that I’ll be posting within the next two weeks.
Thanks again!
Also of note:
.
Locally, in Sanford, Florida, there is a series of teenage street gangs that refer to themselves as the “GOONS” (fortunately, ‘the media’ in its attempt at constructing its false narrative, would NEVER communicate that to anybody) who happen to have a specific type of clothing they prefer (HOODIES in winter).
Dear BTITGKOH:
Imagine that.
I have two links that say the FBI says they could not identify the voice on 911 taoes blc of emotional stress in voice sample, and also b;c sample is of very poor quailty
If thats true, then its impossible to detrmine who was screming, by comparing unidentifiable screams on 911 tape to samples that are already identfied.
Please read these2 links carefully and please comment.
also, Have either Nakasone or Marr backed off their conclusions? I have heard that they have now recanted…
Thank You!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/17/prosecutors-release-new-evidence-in-george-zimmerman-shooting-case.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/17/acd.02.html
Dear ruth taka:
thanks for your comment, but this information is quite old. There has been no change in this issue since the FBI admitted it could not tell who was screaming on the police dispatch tape (it wasn’t actually a 9-11 line). And while the civilian “experts” also grudgingly, ultimately admitted they couldn’t tell either, they tried to fudge it and suggest they thought it was Martin. The problem is such analysis depends on having very similar samples of the people with whom the tape is being compared, an impossibility in this case. Therefore it is never going to be possible for the FBI to change its conclusions.
Thanks again.