The Martin case continues to take unexpected and unusual turns. One of those turns is the primary focus of this article. I originally hoped to provide analysis of the Special Prosecutor’s interview with Martin’s girlfriend—Dee Dee—in this article, but for reasons I’ll explain at the end of this article, will defer that to next Wednesday. Thus we have:
The Bond/Passport Issue:
Those following the case are aware that the passport issue has already disappeared. Zimmerman did have two passports as a result of the mistaken belief he had lost his original passport, which expired in May. He did request and receive a replacement and so, in the strictest sense, had two passports, but again, one was expired and useless. In addition, his attorney, Mr. O’Mara, was aware of all of this and reportedly in control of the only usable passport. As a result, Judge Lester immediately lost interest in this situation. The issue of money is more complicated and remains unclear.
There is no question that Judge Lester was aware of a substantial sum of money raised in Zimmerman’s defense through the Internet (at the time, somewhere between $130,00 and $150,000). The transcript of the original bond hearing (on April 20, 2012) makes this clear. During that hearing, he spoke with Shelly Zimmerman—George’s wife—by phone and established that she did not know when the website was set up or how much money had been raised. He also established that her brother-in-law did have those answers and could come to the phone, but the Judge did not request that. Mark O’Mara was working with Zimmerman to deal with that money and any issues related to it and was in regular contact with Judge Lester about it. On April 27, 2012 the Flopping Aces site noted:
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer accused of wrongly killing Trayvon Martin, will not immediately have to turn over donations made to his website, a Florida judge said Friday.
Zimmerman collected about $204,000 in donations through the website, but did not disclose the contributions during his bond hearing last week, according to his attorney, Mark O’Mara.
Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda asked Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. to increase Zimmerman’s $150,000 bond. But the judge said he would delay ruling on the request, in part because he does not know if he has authority to say how the money can be used.
Lester and O’Mara both said they are concerned about releasing the names of donors to Zimmerman, who has faced threats since the case began making national headlines in March.
‘My fear is they may well be targeted for reprisals or animosities or whatever,’ O’Mara told reporters after the hearing.
Zimmerman’s family testified last week at his bond hearing that they did not have the kind of resources that would have been necessary to meet the prosecution’s suggested $1 million bond.
About $5,000 from the website contribution was used in making bond, O’Mara said. The rest came from a loan secured by a family home.
Although Zimmerman spent some of the contributions on living expenses, about $150,000 remains, O’Mara said Friday. O’Mara said he has put the money into a trust he controls until a final decision is made about its use.
Lester asked for additional information about the accounts but did not indicate when he would rule.
‘I’m not going to make a snap decision,’ Lester said.
Keep in mind that at the time of the original bond hearing, the Special Prosecutor had recordings of all phone calls between George and Shelly Zimmerman while George was in jail awaiting that hearing, yet did not raise that issue during that hearing.
On June 1, 2012, ABC News reported:
A judge revoked bond today for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of a Florida teenager in his gated community, and ordered him to surrender himself in 48 hours.
Prosecutors had filed a motion today to revoke his bond, accusing Zimmerman of “deceiving” the court about his finances and his possession of a second passport, which he apparently acquired two weeks after the shooting.
‘The court was led to believe that they didn’t have a single penny,” said prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda. “If this [the money] wasn’t relevant to bond then why did they lie about it? I don’t know what other words to use besides that it was a blatant lie.’
The judge seemed to agree.
‘They were well aware of the money that was available,’ [said] Judge Kenneth Lester.
The Orlando Sentinel has a brief story about this aspect of the case:
Defense attorneys for George Zimmerman issued a statement today, explaining that their client made a “mistake” when he failed to tell a judge about thousands of dollars he’d raised through his website.
‘We feel the failure to ‘says the statement, posted on the defense team’s blog. ‘The gravity of this mistake has been distinctly illustrated, and Mr. Zimmerman understands that this mistake has undermined his credibility, which he will have to work to repair…
Zimmerman had collected thousands in donations online through a PayPal account, prosecutors said, but his wife told the judge that they were basically indigent. Lester granted $150,000 bail.
According to the defense’s new blog post, of the original $204,000 raised by Zimmerman’s fund, about $150,000 was moved to defense fund his attorneys helped establish, and $30,000 ‘was used to make the complicated transition from private life in Sanford, FL to a life in hiding as a defendant in a high-profile court case.’
About $20,000, the lawyers say, ‘was kept liquid to provide living expenses for the first several months.’ Neither Zimmerman nor his attorneys have direct access to the defense fund, the post says.
‘While Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that he allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court, the defense will emphasize that in all other regards, Mr. Zimmerman has been forthright and cooperative,’ the post says.
The statement notes that he ‘stayed in ongoing contact’ with law enforcement, gave ‘voice exemplars for comparison’ and ‘has twice surrendered himself to law enforcement when asked to do so.’
‘At the point of the bond hearing, Mr. Zimmerman had been driven from his home and neighborhood, could not go to work, his wife could not go back to a finish her nursing degree, his mother and father had been driven from their home, and he had been thrust into the national spotlight as a racist murderer by factions acting with their own agendas. None of those allegations have been supported by the discovery released to date, yet the hatred continues.’
ANALYSIS:
There is no question that the judge was completely aware of the Internet account at the original hearing where the prosecution was asking for a one million dollar bond. He spoke with Shelly Zimmerman about it by phone, yet did not ask the logical questions necessary to follow up on that aspect of their finances. The issue was being discussed after that hearing as well because the prosecution was asking the judge to increase the bond, and the Judge was aware of how much money was in that account (it was increasing daily and has dramatically increased since his re-incarceration).
The transcript of the original hearing shows that the judge was considering the Zimmerman’s normal financial means and the Internet account as two separate matters. In telling the judge they had no money, as the court was considering those separate issues, they were correct and were not deceiving the court.
This is where I find myself somewhat confused by this entire matter. The Special Prosecutor has, from before the original bond hearing, been aware of the phone calls between George and Shelly Zimmerman. If she felt they had far more money than they were saying and were lying about it, she had all the “evidence” she needed, yet did not raise that issue at the single hearing—the bond hearing—devoted to that issue. And at that hearing, the money was anything but concealed. After the hearing, the money and its disposition were also known to the court and the prosecutor, apparently on a regular basis.
Bond is issued—in any amount—to secure the appearance of the accused in court. Zimmerman is not a flight risk and has, from the beginning of this case, fully cooperated with the authorities. In fact, as Mr. O’Mara noted, the only person at real, daily risk is Zimmerman. There is no reason to believe that Zimmerman has become an increased flight risk at this, or any other time. As I already noted, the court has recognized that the passport issue raised by the prosecutor as though it was a violation of national security amounts to nothing. The prosecutor’s motion to revoke bond took a near-hysterical tone, while simultaneously admitting that Zimmerman’s original passport expired in May of 2012.
While it does appear to be the case that Zimmerman was, in some way negligent in dealing with this matter—Mr. O’Mara has released a public statement to that effect–considering the fact that the court was aware of it from the beginning of this case and was dealing with it on a continual basis, I’m having a little difficulty understanding the specific basis for revoking Zimmerman’s bond, and the Judge’s reasons therefore.
In such cases, the facts are usually far more cut and dried. Defendant Smith tells the judge he has no money at all and is given a small bond. The Judge later learns that Smith had ten million stashed in a numbered Swiss account and had no way of knowing that until the evidence of the account was presented to him. In the Zimmerman case, he knew about the Internet money all along.
It does appear, considering what they knew and when they knew it, that the Special Prosecutor’s Office is doing their best to cause Zimmerman the greatest possible difficulty. Are they doing this unethically? I can’t say with certainty, because again, I’m still not able to fully understand what is going on here. The prosecutor did make arguments about the Internet money at the original bond hearing, and the judge decided not to immediately rule on that issue.
To whatever degree Zimmerman didn’t play strictly by the rules, he behaved foolishly. I’m still confused about what Mr. O’Mara knew about this and when he knew it—to say nothing of whatever advice he may have given Zimmerman–so he may yet bear some portion of whatever blame might reasonably be apportioned. I’m also confused about what the judge knew and about his intentions in dealing with this. There is, as far as I can determine, nothing preventing him from demanding and receiving a day by day, penny by penny accounting of the Internet account about which he was aware from the first day of this case, yet he apparently chose not to do that, in essence, ensuring that he would be, to at least some degree, uninformed. He noted that he needed to research the issue to determine what powers he had in dealing with this money. Did he determine that he had no powers? Did he simply let it slip his mind? Why is he apparently behaving as though he was blind-sided by an issue about which he was aware from day one? Most unusual and confusing.
However, considering the way this unremarkable case has been blown completely out of proportion, one might want to give George Zimmerman and his family—or anyone in his position–a little slack. Even absent the incredible political character of this case, who—not a career criminal–upon being charged with second degree murder, would understand all of the processes and rules of the criminal justice system? Even as a police officer, I often had to do research to be fully informed about the kinds of issues being discussed here.
Imagine that not only have the President of the United States and the First Lady weighed in against you, but the full weight of the racial grievance industry and the media have come down solidly against you. One day you’re just another citizen going about his life, and the next, you’re a murderous, racist child killer. Movie director Spike Lee has publicized the address of your parents—obviously encouraging deadly violence—and got it wrong, terrorizing an innocent elderly couple. The New Black Panthers, a violent group of actual racists that routinely calls for the death of white people, including white babies, has put out a bounty on you, and you know that they are favored and protected by the Federal Department of Justice because AG Erik Holder saw that a case of voter intimidation against them the DOJ already won was dismissed (to say nothing of the fact that the DOJ does nothing about the bounty). You know that the airwaves and the Internet are full of death threats against not only you but your wife and family. Your life, and the lives of your family have been destroyed. You can’t work, you’re destitute, and everyone you know and love has been forced into hiding. Do you have a future? Who knows?
This sounds like the plot of a particularly bad B-movie. But it is exactly what has happened—and more and worse—in this case. Again, to whatever degree Zimmerman has not adhered to the letter of the law in this situation, he is certainly wrong and is obviously bearing the consequences of that failing. However, one might be able to understand one in his position hoping to keep his wife and family from utter financial ruin–or worse.
Perhaps one day all of the facts will be known and the actions of the Special Prosecutor and others might make more sense. But for the moment, I find myself, once again, trying to analyze matters without all of the facts, and ending up at least partially frustrated.
AN APPARENT CONTRADICTION:
Reader JOC56 wrote:
Mike, re. ‘the button’ & headphones: On page 2 (of 7) of Christopher Serino’s Report of Investigation he states that “…a bag of Skittles candy, a red 7-11 red lighter in his pockets, headphones next to him, and a photo pin on his sweatshirt”. I think at some point the photo pin was removed (during CPR perhaps?) and placed into TM’s pockets along with the headphones before the body was transported. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the evidence released back in May. I assume that when you have multiple people looking at a crime scene at different times that is to be expected. As a former police officer what is your experience as far as this is concerned?
This insightful and well-informed comment clearly illustrates the nature of reality in such cases: apparent contradictions are common. Sometimes they arise because of paperwork errors, because officers don’t communicate as fully as they could/should in the field, because patrol officers and investigators have very different focuses, and for a wide variety of other systemic reasons such as inadequate or confusing forms or poorly thought out procedures. To whatever degree they are important, they are often sorted out in court and found to be insignificant, or occasionally, embarrassing to this or that officer who realizes all too late—on the witness stand—that he should have paid just a bit more attention to that aspect of his duties.
Here’s a screen shot of the PDF of the evidence portion of what I believe is Officer Ayala’s original report. Note that it indicates that he found the photo pin/button (and several other items) in one of Martin’s unspecified pockets.
Here’s a screen shot of the PDF of Investigator Serino’s report. On page 2 of 7 of that report he writes that the photo pin was on Martin’s sweatshirt.
However, this screen shot from page 4 of 7 of the same report, the evidence section, indicates that the photo button was “collected from with in [sic] the victim’s pockets.”
What to make of this? The original officer—Ayala—places the button in one of Martin’s pockets. The investigator, who was called to the scene later, also places it in one of Martin’s pockets, yet also claims to have seen it on Martin’s hoodie.
To understand this, one must consider the nature of evidence and how it is handled in law enforcement. I speak about this not only as a former patrol officer and detective, but as a former division commander in charge of an evidence section and all aspects of that function. This is one aspect of the Sanford Police Department’s investigation about which I have some small concerns.
In a case like Martin’s, a responding officer’s first job is to secure and protect all potential evidence. However, if a victim might be revived, evidence takes a back seat, but even so it may never be disregarded and officers must be as careful as possible to secure and protect it.
Any officer taking possession of any piece of evidence is absolutely responsible for:
(1) Recording the date, time and location from which that evidence came into his possession.
(2) Properly marking and bagging/securing the evidence. Officers usually do this by putting items in plastic or paper bags provided for that purpose and marked with the appropriate labels for collecting that information. They’ll keep it in their pockets, if possible, or will lock it in the truck of their patrol car.
(3) Being very, very specific about what they’ve taken. I’ve previously noted that they called a can of Arizona Watermelon Cocktail “iced tea,” which is disturbing. Watermelon cocktail is no more iced tea than a banana is an apple. Precision is vitally important, and an officer often doesn’t know which factors can make or break a case at its beginning.
(4) Keeping anything they’ve collected under their exclusive control until they can lock it into the secure lockers established for that purpose at their headquarters. When they do that, they note the exact date and time and any other relevant information such as the locker # in which they placed it, etc.
(5) Ensuring that items which must be photographed in place prior to collection are protected and undisturbed. Police lore has many stories of low-ranking cops who overturned a bucket on a bloody footprint and ignored the orders of higher-ranking officers to move, eventually saving the case and ensuring a very bad guy was put away. Such stories are usually apocryphal, but illustrate an important point.
Whether an officer collects five or fifty items, he must be as precise and exact for the first as for the last item. When I worked car burglaries, I often spent entire days after serving search warrants carefully logging, photographing and completing paperwork on huge numbers of recovered items such as 100 or more individual CD’s, hoping for, and sometimes finding, that one set of initials or a distinctive marking that would make a case. Handling evidence is always a matter of attention to detail.
All of this is done to maintain an unbroken chain of evidence for each and every item taken into custody. If they wish, a defense attorney can demand that every person who handled a piece of evidence testify in court. This will commonly include the officer that originally found an item and logged it into evidence, the evidence technician who received it and put it in the secure evidence facility, any detectives who might have actually handled the item, and any evidence technician or officer who actually brings it into court. This is necessary to prove that no one has tampered with the evidence. If the chain is broken, the evidence may be ruled inadmissible and a case could be lost. Smart attorneys never do this unless they can prove a real problem in the handling of the evidence that will have a real effect on the case. It takes a great deal of time and risks ticking off the judge and jury.
Perhaps I just don’t have the relevant forms, but I’m not seeing this level of detail in the reports of the Sanford PD available to me, and if that is, in fact, the state of their evidence system, the chief of that agency should be concerned indeed. If a case ends up in court two years in the future, will officer Ayala remember in which pocket the photo button was found? When he found it? Will Investigator Serino be able to explain the apparent contradiction in his report? Doubtful.
ANALYSIS:
What most likely happened is that at some point—perhaps before Serino arrived or after—the items were, in fact, removed from Martin’s pockets. Officer Ayala’s report indicates that he and Sgt. Ralmondo did perform CPR on Martin (Ayala did compressions, Ralmondo breaths), but the 711 videos indicate that the button, even if it had been still attached to Martin’s hoodie, would not have been in the way. It was attached to the hoodie quite off the centerline of Martin’s chest. When doing CPR, no officer—even if they needed to remove a button or other obstruction—would take the time to put it in a person’s pocket. They would simply remove it and toss it aside. And any officer handling the button as a potential piece of evidence, if they removed it from Martin’s hoodie, would never put it in one of his pockets, but would handle it as I’ve already explained. Putting an item somewhere on the victim other than where it was originally found is an enormous mistake that could confuse or harm a case. At the very least, valuable time will be wasted trying to explain how that happened. No competent police officer would do that.
The most likely explanation is that, as I’ve previously proposed, Martin removed the pin from his hoodie and put it in a pocket prior to confronting Martin, perhaps because he knew he was about to engage in a fight and didn’t want to lose it, or because he didn’t want such an obvious identifier on his otherwise unremarkable clothing. All of the SPD reports save Serino’s place the pin in one of Martin’s pockets, and most of those were written by officers originally responding to the call, people in a position to see the state of the evidence long before Serino arrived. Remember that Serino’s account also put the pin in one of Martin’s pockets though earlier he apparently contradicted himself.
Is this a major issue? To the degree that it might tend to show Martin’s forethought in removing it before confronting Zimmerman, it might be an issue of some importance. However, this can easily be cleared up in the preliminary hearing, or at trial should one ever occur. As I noted, such contradictions should not be present, but remember that this is, at this moment, only an apparent contradiction. We don’t have all of the SPD documents.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Regarding the most recent developments in the case, it’s clear the passport was nothing but an unintentional oversight and the judge has plainly accepted it as such. The prosecution has, once again, struck out. However, as I’ve noted from the beginning of the involvement of the Special Prosecutor, the approach of Ms. Corey and its other employees seems to be unprofessional and to indicate personal, emotional involvement. Its affidavit for charging lacked even rudimentary probable cause and did not prove the elements of the offense. In her statement to the press, Corey said that she’d observe legal ethics and actually observe Florida law (the minimum expected of any prosecutor, rather like observing that an English teacher actually plans to teach English), and referred to Martin’s parents as “sweet.” And in the motion to revoke bond, de la Rionda spoke of Mr. O’Mara’s representation to the court that the passport he turned over was Zimmerman’s only passport. De la Rionda wrote: “Nothing could be further from the truth.” This sort of hyperbolic editorial commentary is not professional legal writing, which is always focused on matters of fact and law.
The issue of the Internet account is not entirely resolved and remains unclear. There will no doubt soon be another bond hearing, and it is entirely possible Zimmerman will again be out of jail. Considering all of those that want him dead, no sheriff in his right mind would want Zimmerman in his jail for long, and surely the judge is aware of this, which is one more sign of the bizarre turns this case has taken. Those who believe this issue utterly destroys Zimmerman’s credibility might want to sit on those thoughts for awhile until the curtain truly comes down on this particular act of this—what? Tragedy? Farce? We’ll see.
I originally intended to address the issue of “DeeDee’s” statement in this article, but as often happens, other issues ran a bit long. With the help of a reader who prefers to remain anonymous, I’ve put together what I believe is an entirely accurate transcript of that interview, conducted by assistant Special Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. I say that I “believe” it because the task was unusually difficult. The reader who provided the foundation for the transcript got about 85% of it right; a truly Herculean effort. There are an enormous number of problems with that interview—including the fact that de la Rionda has little idea how to conduct an interview and constantly walks on Dee Dee’s statements–as you’ll soon see, but one of the most serious is that “DeeDee” not only affects a stereotypical “black” dialect (my older readers may recall the “Ebonics” controversy of the late 1990s), but also speaks with the common lazy diction of many teenagers, which often includes mumbling.
Before you begin screaming racism (sorry, all race cards are expired in this particular Internet ATM), understand that I am referring to the fact—not a prejudice—that some black people, particularly in some parts of the nation, speak with distinctive dialects which include shortening suffixes—”goin'” instead of “going,” or sometimes shorting it to “gon,” or instead of using the proper form of the most irregular verb—be (be, being, been, am, are, is, was, were), using only “be” as in “he be goin’ to the park,” or simply, “he gon’ da park.” Yes, some white people do it too. Dialects are common in all races, and as a teacher of high school English, I am daily accosted by lazy diction. This year I had a young man as white as Wonderbread who was apparently frightened by consonants as a child. “Is this due tomorrow?” might be rendered as “Ih is u uroh?” Add mumbling, and you see the problem.
To render a transcript of this kind accurately, a transcriber will inevitably have to listen to some passages repeatedly, and if they can be understood at all, then has the choice to render it absolutely accurately and be declared a racist, or clean it up to make it more readable. You’ll see my choice—which you can confirm for yourself by listening to the You Tube audio of the complete interview, on Wednesday, June 13, 2012. Simply put, the interview requires a complete article, and I’ll provide the complete transcript with analysis.
In earlier articles, I suggested that putting Dee Dee on the witness stand would likely be dangerous for the prosecution. You have no idea—and apparently neither does the prosecution.
I hope to see you there!
Stately McDaniel Manor 
I always look forward to Mike’s analysis on this and other cases.
A couple of points. To those that think that the internet account has destroyed Zimmerman’s credibility, consider for a moment what the man has been through for several months now. He was involved in an altercation that in itself would have affected him in ways unimaginable. Then when just as it seems that the matter will be settled sensibly, he is thrust into the center of a politial and racial firestorm. He has been stripped of some of his fundimental rights, including the presumotion of innocence. His attackers, including the prosecution, behave in violent and unethical ways and no one in in the media seems to care, but the slightest thing that could make him look bad is then seized by the media as if that would be the smoking gun to prove his guilt. Did he make a mistake in the handling of the internet account? Probably. But given nightmarish and unrealistic situation that he is in, it is not remarkable that he made a mistake, but rather that he has made so few.
His faith in getting fair treatment must have been obliterated by now and even if he prevails in court, he has to know that the racism industry will continue to persue him long after that. This is contary to every thing that this country is supposed to stand for, but came about mainly because our President needed to distract the people from the then latest politiacal ploy that blew up in his face.
The arrogence of the prosecution is appalling, going so far as to threaten to sue people because they dare to criticize her, a public official, and her performance in her public duties.
When the dust settles on this case, there needs to be some retribution on those responsible or we will be condemned to see this repeated over and over again.
Secondly, nothing better illustrates just how bad the situation has become than the amount of time and writing that Mike had to put in explaing the difficulty of transcribing Dee Dee’s speech rather just being able to state the obvious, lest some member of the professionally offended scream “racist”.
Oh, and let us not forget that if George Zimmerman had decided to go by his mother’s hispanic maiden name, none of us would have ever heard of him.
Dear Thresherman:
Thanks for your kind comments. Good points indeed! Welcome to SMM.
Just a note and it may be wrong but my comp is telling me you have insecure content. I am going to start following but it is a slight concern for me.
Dear Stobberdobber:
Hi there and welcome aboard. I’ve no idea why your computer is telling you that. I’ve never had that happen before. Please keep in mind that since we’re dealing with the Net, I can’t guarantee that things will never have problems, but I’m not aware of any reason to believe that this site has “insecure content.”
Thanks!
mine is doing the same Mike. I have decided to read what you are saying because there is excellent analysis. However, I am getting the same message.
stobber- I have been following Mike’s site for several weeks now, and have never had any problems.
There was an article posted by a Fox affiliate in Fla. several weeks ago which claimed that they found that the FDLE, the Gov’s office I believe, and some other government offices were monitoring their site. I have no doubt that many many sites, which are examining the facts in the case are being monitored. Not sure if that would cause any type of message.
Great article and analysis once again Mike.
Two things. First, I have been getting the insecure content popup since I started following here right after Mike left Confederate Yankee and have had none issues. I just click on to display nonsecure items and go on.
Secondly, I read in the local paper under national news that a Junior Alexander Guy got a new cell phone number in May and instantly he started receiving calls that went from insulting up to death threats. It seems that T Mobile issued him George Zimmerman’s old number, the one that was recorded on the 9-11 call that was widely distributed by news media.
The calls have gotten bad enough that Guy and his mother who lives with him had to leave their home and relocate out of fear for their lives. T Mobile is denying any responsibility and refuses to pay for any damages.
This can be added to the innocent people who have been beaten as retribution for Trayvon by black mobs, the couple whose address was mistakenly given as Zimmerman’s parents by Spike Lee, the bounty put out by the New Black Panthers and so on and so forth.
I recall how the media reported that Sarah Palin was in part to blame Rep. Giffords shooting because she posted an political ad with cross hairs on several congressional districts, including Gifford’s. That was a reach, but now people are being hurt and in fear for thier lives because of a media that behaved and continues to behave irresponsibly. Worse yet, are the acts of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharton. These two profit from the fanning of the flames of racial discord which result in attacks on innocents in some perverted sense of getting even.
If we had a Justice Department that was actually interested in blind justice rather than playing political and racial favorites, Jackson and Sharpton would be hauled up on charges of violating the civil rights of these innocent people. Unfortunately we have reached a point in this country where equal rights means that some politically favored minorities are entitled to supeior rights. Or as Orwell put it in Animal Farm, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
Excellent commentary Thresherman. Sharpton and Jackson have been up to their eyeballs in race baiting for many years. I’m not aware of any beatings or killings as a result of their actions with the Duke case, or the Tawana Brawley case. They inflicted great pain on those who were ultimately found innocent of the false charges brought against them, but I am not aware of any others suffering from the consequences. I could be wrong.
With the Trayvon Martin case, there are severe beatings that have happened to innocent people, in the name of Justice for Trayvon. Sharpton and Jackson are an especially protected species within the Obama Holder admin. They will never suffer the first day of punishment while those two are still in office. Only when Obama is replaced can we hope to regain a fair and equal justice system for all.
I wonder if any of those who suffered at the hands of the incited, by Sharpton and Jackson, can bring civil rights lawsuits against them, once Obama is gone in 2013.
it is not the first time that Sharptongue and 2J’s have fanned the flames of hatred. Think the Crown heights riots because it was those two who fanned the flames of hatred. That hatred caused the death of an Australian Jew who was in New York at the time. I think from memory he was stabbed to death by those who were rioting in the streets.
Sharptongue and 2 J’s have a very nasty habit of turning up the heat and trying to create these situations. Someone needs to permanently shut them down by throwing them in jail.
Or maybe Martin put the items in his pocket because he didnt know if the person following him would mug him?? If someone was following me in the dark, I’d be doing same. Whatever you post about Trayvon Martin, whether he used drugs or not, the killing was ultimately avoidable.
Do you suggest we take arms and kill all the teenagers who do drugs? Or is it okay for anyone to start a fight, and when you cant win it, shoot the person? GZ bruises are what you get in a fight, nothing deadly.
If GZ was the one screaming in the tape, I’d expect that he’d be saying things like ‘I’m armed and would shoot you if you dont get off me’. Why did he not fire a warning shot into the air? Why did he have to shoot the boy in the heart?
Its not a case of race (as such), just an over zealous man who took the laws into his hands. Thank God for the UK, such madness would not even be debated.
GZ should (and would) serve time for cutting that young man’s life short. TM deserved a chance at life. Who knows what he’d have grown up to become?
“it is better to remain silent and be thought to be an idiot rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
Clearly you simply have no grasp of the situation that Zimmerman was in or you would not be uttering such nonsense. Martin was beating his head onto a concrete sidewalk and hitting him in the face (his wounds are evidence to that) and you think that he is supposed to try to reason with him or fire a warning shot?
If you beleive that Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, perhaps you could enlighten us to just what laws he violated in order to do so?
Being dead does not automaticallly grant Martin innocence nor does being alive deem Zimmerman guilty no matter how much you seem to think that it does. Had the gun laws of the UK prevailed here, probably the outcome would have been that Zimmerman would have left behind a widow and fatherless children and your hero Trayvon would been the one incarcerated and facing murder charges.
Martin could have remained alive if he had simply went to his father’s residence. Zimmerman had every right to check out someone behaving suspiciously. From the evidence as we know it, Martin’s choices and acts escalated the situation and instead of being some innocent bystander, he was the author of his own demise.
You clearly have a grasp of the situation GZ was in as you were obviously there?? Everyone who disagrees with you guys get called names…I bet the court has more evidence than the lies GZ has been spouting.
TM had every right to hang around if he wanted to, GZ took the law into his own hands. He’ll definitely serve time…you guys can dig all you want about TM and his family.
We’ll know who the real idiot(s) is very soon.
And no….his wounds are nothing like someone who’s head was hit against a wooden door let alone concrete, the reports said minor bleeding from his head. A broken nose is easily gotten in an everyday fight….no matter what you guys dig up, the use of deadly force was never warranted.
People fight and get blackeye, broken nose, and even worse….since when did that warrant shooting and killing a person because he’s gaining the upper hand in a fight? Only in America!!!!
Dear Sanjacs:
Welcome and thanks for your comment(s), but weren’t you going to delete this site before the comment that follows?
But just for the record: I do not know George Zimmerman or anyone associated with him. I have no connection to him or his defense beyond merely writing about the case. I hope that helps.
To Sanjacs – you asked “since when did that warrant shooting and killing a person because he’s gaining the upper hand in a fight?”
Your philosophical error is in measuring George Zimmerman’s injuries (which were 100% certainly inflicted by Trayvon Martin) against the greater injury (death) to Trayvon Martin. If you do that, of COURSE Zimmerman loses the argument.
But the law doesn’t say that deadly force can only be used when severe, life-threatening injury has already occurred. It says that if George Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of his life or of serious bodily harm, then he was justified in using deadly force. Zimmerman wins that argument, hands down.
OK, let’s examine it, shall we? Zimmerman had already received scrapes, contusions, a broken nose, and lacerations to the back of his head. Up to this point, Trayvon Martin’s only injuries were the scrapes he received to his knuckles in beating Zimmerman. Zimmerman was crying for help, and Martin was not stopping.
How much more do you suggest Zimmerman legally (or even MORALLY) needed to sustain before he was justified in shooting Martin? How many times does it take to get one’s head banged against the concrete before one’s life is not only reasonable threatened, but taken? Can you say that one more punch wouldn’t have killed Zimmerman, or permanently injured him?
The weakness here is in your logic, Sanjacs, no matter what pre-determined moral or legal position you have taken.
I can tell from your response that you have never been in a position of being followed by someone who might be intent upon doing something evil. I have been in that position on more than one occasion.
So let me tell you a few facts about how real people who are afraid do in fact respond to such a situation: the instinct is to keep moving and to find a safe house.
There is absolutely no reason as to why TM had not reached Brandi Green’s condo in a reasonable amount of time after leaving the convenience store. He took roughly 30 minutes for what should have been a 15 minute walk.
It is an absurdity to think that TM was afraid of someone sitting in a car, unless he thought that the person was a drug cop or something like that.
This is why TM’s consumption of both MJ and Purple Drank is important. If as is suspected TM had consumed both, there is a very high possibility that he was going through an epsisode of paranoia at the time he was spotted by GZ. It is more than likely that he took off in order to dump items that would be considered as illegal by the police. His decision to thump GZ is evidence that he was incapable of thinking straight.
Since he had plenty of time to reach the safety of Brandi’s condo, it is reasonable to assume that he backtracked to the T-intersection where he then challenged GZ and then punched GZ in the face followed by the head pounding. Such action was in fact quite unreasonable when it is realized that GZ had been at a safe distance and just checking to see where the stranger had gone.
BTW, TM was not a boy. At 17 he is a youth, and close enough to be called a man. He had the height of an adult. There was nothing that made him look like a little boy at the time of the incident.
Also, you seem to raise some rather silly notions relating to the gun that had been concealed.
This case actually boils down to whether or not TM actually attempted to take control of the gun. The last cry for help before the gun went off was blood curdling. I think this was the moment when GZ realized that TM had spotted the gun and had made a life-threatening statement to GZ who then realized that he had to use the gun first.
Yeah right…. the last cry was of GZ!!
I think I know what this website is all about….you guys are probably connected to GZ and are gathering support for him by raising all this rubbish theories.
How did my browser even bring me here? Delete!
Dear Aussie:
Thanks and welcome to SMM! Your comments are appreciated and insightful.
Mike, thank you for the welcome. It is true, I have been followed at least twice, by men in cars.
The first time I would have been no more than about 12-13 years old. I was delivering pamphlets for my father’s business. The man called me over to his car and asked directions. I gave them, and then he wanted me to get into his car. My instinct told me to say “No”. He would not take “No” for an answer. I walked away. He followed me in the car. I was fortunate enough to be near a friend’s house – a safe house – my grandmother’s house was a lot further away. So I walked into my friend’s place.
The second time was more complicated because the man was working in the same factory where I had temporary employment. His wife worked in the same place. He started to follow me as I walked home. Luckily for me there was a woman working in her garden. My instinct was to stop and talk to the woman. The man then continued on his way.
Sadly, the other tale I have is the one about a boy who was my next door neighbour. He was snatched from the street whilst on his skateboard in Western Australia. His name is Gerard Ross, and the man who assaulted him (the boy was raped) and murdered him has never been found and charged with the crime.
Either way, I am prepared to use my story to negate the nonsense that what TM did was an expected response if someone is being genuinely followed. No, the expected response is for the person to find the nearest safe place.
Sanjacs –
Logic does not conclude that a man on the bottom of a fight, who has received a brokens nose, lacerations to his head and other contusions and scrapes would NOT be the one crying for help. But let’s put that aside…
You selectively disregarded the point that was made concerning WHERE the altercation took place and WHEN it occurred relative to Zimmerman’s phone call with the police dispatcher.
When Trayvon Martin took off running, he was roughly 450ft from Brandi Green’s condo. If you or I walked that distance at a slow pace, we would have reached the condo in about 90 seconds. George Zimmerman remained on the telephone with the dispatcher for about two minutes beyond the point at which Trayvon Martin took off running.
The site of the shooting was approximately 300ft short of Brandi Green’s condo and 5 minutes AFTER Trayvon Martin took off running. The question remains unanswered: If not to confront Zimmerman specifically, why was a so-called frightened teenager NOT already home, but instead, in a death-struggle with George Zimmerman?
Instead you focus on measuring injuries – an irrelevant pursuit.
Aussie; “No, the expected response is for the person to find the nearest safe place.”
Yes. If I were Martin I would have made for home, with some guy following me. Straight for home where 14-year-old Chad would be able to protect me.
Or not.
Martin could have gone to a nearby house and knocked on the door of course.
That might go down well with the householder.
he was very close to Brandi’s apartment. There was no reason for him not to have remained there when he reached that apartment.
That is my point.
In my own story, I did speak to the stranger, a woman who was working in her garden. Here in Australia we do a lot of that kind of thing. In my own case this worked because the man moved on…..
We don’t know if he went to the apartment.
He could equally have relaxed once he had left the road and the guy in the truck. He had passed by the truck and the guy made no attempt to get out.
If he noticed Zimmerman arriving at the top of the pathway area, he could have ducked into one of those dark back porch areas and laid low. Have you seen the photographs of that area? No public lighting. The only light sources are whatever lights are on in the houses.
I have seen people assert that he ran and continued to run after Zimmerman observed him to run for what can only – given the times involved and the layout – a few seconds at most. THis can’t be based on any information.
We don’t know anything about his movements after he disappeared from Zimmerman’s sight . All we know is that he ended up dead 50 feet South of the T-junction.
If you read the witness statements, you might notice that one of the reasons that most of them saw nothing after noticing the sounds of a fight is that they were locking their doors and running upstairs.
I gather that Sanford and Florida sees a lot of violence.
I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that a strange 6’+ black guy knocking on a door in that place on a dark night very probably would not be met with “My poor, poor child. Come inside and be protected from that bad man. We’ll call the police.”
I have been reading along, and I must admit some of this is quite fascinating to take in. I give a lot of credit to some one and some people sitting down and wanting to try and hash out details of a situation, as best as presented.
So, for the official intro on this conversation, let me state I don’t think Zimmerman had it in him to murder anyone. I do think he made a series of incredibly poor decisions that ultimately resulted in Trayvon’s death.
My perspective from the above questions that were raised are most relevant to Zimmerman acting as a vigilante. Lets be honest, folks, that is exactly what he did. He called in to report a suspicious person (to the non em line), however is unable to name a crime that said suspicious person is doing. When said suspicious person realizes he is being checked out, he flees. Zimmerman states the explicatives always get away. But with what, he really can’t say. He takes it upon himself to follow Trayvon down the block. Some people would call that “chasing”. Assuming that is where it ended, fine, but it didn’t end there. Zimmerman sought to leave his ground to investigate some one else’s. Rather than supply the non emergency operator with his current location, he asks that the police call his phone to find his current whereabouts. That pretty much screams he had further intent to continue his chase/follow/stalk, whatever you want to call it, it was still unwarranted.
Why didn’t Trayvon go home? What obligation does he have to do so? Zimmerman is allowed to follow this kid where ever, but the onus of the chased is immediately to flee. I find it also interesting that some one that Zimmerman finds threatening is the kind of person he decides to follow down dark back alleys. I personally wouldn’t lead a person with unknown (and in my mind hostile) intent back to my residence either.
According to Zimmerman, (and this part is incredibly tongue in cheek because I find Zimmerman’s side of the story incredibly incredible), Trayvon turns into a ninja that seemingly comes out of no where in an open corridor (literally at least 20 yards wide and more than double that long), punches him in the nose felling him in one blow, mounts him (as some would say MMA style), beats his head into the ground twice on the concrete that causes grass stains, holds his hand over his mouth AND goes for his gun, all while stating the magic words “You’re gonna die tonight” that cause Zimmerman to fear for his life. Trayvon the four armed ninja STRIKES!
I think the mostly likely of situation stitches DD’s, and Zimmerman’s stories, in that they ran into eachother by the cut through, Zimmerman trumped up on sense of (misplaced) authority, and Martin in prideful youth shouted at eachother over various actions the other committed. Niether answers the other’s questions, and again, lets be real here, niether one has too. Zimmerman reaches for his cell phone, Trayvon thinks he is going for his gun (which MIGHT have been visible) or other such weapon, and presto. Fight is on.
In all this, though, I put the “blame” on Zimmerman. Not murder blame, just… common sense blame. Why are you chasing people at night with a gun? Why are you calling the non em line for literally no discernable reason? Why would you HANG UP with said operator if you thought this kid was trouble? The chain of that night’s events started with Zimmerman making at best a questionable judgement call, then doubling down on mistake after mistake. In all this, the adult of the situation was acting like the kid, and seemingly from what I am reading, the kid was supposed to have acted like an adult. I can’t abide by that.
I will be happy to point out the fault in your logic. I will place what you wrote in quotes, and follow selected excerpts with my responses in parentheses. Spelling corrections are added at no charge.
“So, for the official intro on this conversation, let me state I don’t think Zimmerman had it in him to murder anyone. I do think he made a series of incredibly poor decisions that ultimately resulted in Trayvon’s death.”
(You present a conclusion, but you offer no proximate causal connection between ANY of Zimmerman’s actions and Trayvon Martin’s death. You have presented no action committed by Zimmerman that was either criminal or which placed Trayvon Martin at reasonable fear for his physical safety. Interesting, but nevertheless typical of some.)
“My perspective from the above questions that were raised are most relevant to Zimmerman acting as a vigilante. Lets be honest, folks, that is exactly what he did. He called in to report a suspicious person (to the non em line), however is unable to name a crime that said suspicious person is doing.”
(Uhhhh, had he witnessed an obvious crime he would have called 911!! He was suspicious of Martin, and there was no crime in that. He saw someone he did not recognize, loitering near a part of the housing area that was closed, in the rain, wearing clothing that is common to people wishing to conceal their identities – a reasonable person could easily conclude that calling the non em number was not at all out of the question – in fact, the dispatcher himself didn’t dismiss Zimmerman’s call – and in fact DID dispatch officers to the scene BEFORE the shooting took place.)
” When said suspicious person realizes he is being checked out, he flees. Zimmerman states the explicatives always get away. But with what, he really can’t say. He takes it upon himself to follow Trayvon down the block. Some people would call that “chasing”. Assuming that is where it ended, fine, but it didn’t end there. Zimmerman sought to leave his ground to investigate someone else’s.”
(So, Zimmerman left “his ground” to investigate someone else’s? Really? And you have evidence that Zimmerman invaded Martin’s personal space? No? Yeah, I thought not. Again, not a crime to have done what he did, and not a physical threat to Martin.)
” Rather than supply the non emergency operator with his current location, he asks that the police call his phone to find his current whereabouts. That pretty much screams he had further intent to continue his chase/follow/stalk, whatever you want to call it, it was still unwarranted.”
(Uhhh…no, it doesn’t scream anything. Think what you are saying. Zimmerman has called a police dispatcher, has been informed that police are on the way, is uncertain when they will arrive, but from experience, probably knows it will be within a very short period of time, and YOU say he has designs on continuing a pursuit? After he has CLEARLY acknowledged AND complied with the dispatcher’s recommendation not to? Oh, and by the way – 90 seconds AFTER Martin took off running, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he is unaware of Martin’s location – a 90-second period during which Martin could easily have reached Brandi Green’s condo if that is where he intended to go. Just doesn’t make sense – but it does support your pre-conceived notions, I suppose)
“Why didn’t Trayvon go home? What obligation does he have to do so? Zimmerman is allowed to follow this kid where ever, but the onus of the chased is immediately to flee.”
(Of course he has no obligation to do so…but if he was running, and was en route to that location and was afraid of his pursuer, as Dee Dee has indicated, then he would have BEEN home. Instead he was shot and killed a full football field away from home more than 5 minutes after he took off running. Hardly the indication of a young man trying to avoid a confrontation!)
“I find it also interesting that some one that Zimmerman finds threatening is the kind of person he decides to follow down dark back alleys. I personally wouldn’t lead a person with unknown (and in my mind hostile) intent back to my residence either. ”
(Prior to exiting his vehicle, Zimmerman was told twice by the dispatcher to tell him [the dispatcher] if he [Martin] did anything else. When Martin took off running, Zimmerman exited his vehicle and pursued from a distance. On what basis do you claim Zimmerman felt Martin was a physical threat to him? I have never seen it written that Zimmerman was personally afraid of Martin. Perhaps you have the quote from a source I haven’t researched? In any case, there is no evidence that Zimmerman ever came close to Martin after Martin took off running.)
“According to Zimmerman, (and this part is incredibly tongue in cheek because I find Zimmerman’s side of the story incredibly incredible), Trayvon turns into a ninja that seemingly comes out of nowhere in an open corridor (literally at least 20 yards wide and more than double that long), punches him in the nose felling him in one blow, mounts him (as some would say MMA style), beats his head into the ground twice on the concrete that causes grass stains, holds his hand over his mouth AND goes for his gun, all while stating the magic words “You’re gonna die tonight” that cause Zimmerman to fear for his life. Trayvon the four armed ninja STRIKES! ”
(I have never heard the term ninja used to describe Martin; however, unless you have ever been cold-cocked, you have no idea how unprepared you would be for it, and how off-balance it could make you, in light of the fact you are not anticipating it. it isn’t at ALL unreasonable to picture Zimmerman being floored by a 17 year old teen who gives no warning that a punch to the face is even coming. And yes, it was an EYEwitness who described Martin’s behavior as MMA-style, not Zimmerman.)
“I think the mostly likely of situation stitches DD’s, and Zimmerman’s stories, in that they ran into each other by the cut through, Zimmerman trumped up on sense of (misplaced) authority, and Martin in prideful youth shouted at each other over various actions the other committed. Neither answers the other’s questions, and again, let’s be real here, neither one has too. Zimmerman reaches for his cell phone, Trayvon thinks he is going for his gun (which MIGHT have been visible) or other such weapon, and presto. Fight is on.”
(Nice hypothetical situation, but for the fact that neither Zimmerman NOR Dee Dee describe events as you have made them up to be. According to Dee Dee AND Zimmerman there was no prolonged verbal exchange. And as for Zimmerman’s weapon, it is unlikely it was visible in the dark, with his oversized jacket partially zipped up and the weapon in its holster and tucked into Zimmerman’s waistband. Just another hypothetical situation not supported by any evidence, and contradicted by some of it.)
“In all this, though, I put the “blame” on Zimmerman. Not murder blame, just… common sense blame. Why are you chasing people at night with a gun? Why are you calling the non em line for literally no discernable reason? Why would you HANG UP with said operator if you thought this kid was trouble?”
(Answers to your questions:
1 – He wasn’t chasing anyone with a gun. He was a man following someone. He happened to be in possession of a legally registered and carried firearm, but he was not brandishing it, and there is no evidence he ever intended to confront Martin OR use the weapon, or event threaten to.
2 – You are incorrect that there was no discernable reason. Zimmerman reasonably believed Martin was out of place, and perhaps up to no good. He committed no crime against Florida law OR against common sense. he saw someone he did not recognize, dressed like a stereotypical hoodlum, loitering in the rain, looking aimlessly around at various residences – sorry, but reasonable people would find that very discernable.
3 – Zimmerman didn’t THINK the kid was a physical threat to his safety. That’s why he didn’t call 911 in the FIRST place. Sure, he thought the kid was creepy and perhaps on drugs, but when Zimmerman hung up the phone, he didn’t know where Martin was, and he knew police would be there shortly. Why NOT hang up with the dispatcher? Their conversation had run its course. He could no longer describe any of Martin’s actions, police were on the way, the dispatcher had all of Zimmerman’s necessary contact information to provide the police. Were they supposed to continue to gum up a dispatcher number to discuss sports or the weather?)
“The chain of that night’s events started with Zimmerman making at best a questionable judgment call, then doubling down on mistake after mistake. In all this, the adult of the situation was acting like the kid, and seemingly from what I am reading, the kid was supposed to have acted like an adult. I can’t abide by that.”
(AHHH….but it WAS a judgment call, and not unreasonable. Again, what crime did Zimmerman commit? What evidence is there other than Dee Dee’s clearly coached statement to the prosecutor – and which is in complete conflict with the recording of Zimmerman’s phone call – that Zimmerman EVER closed the distance with Martin? Where is the evidence he made any threatening moves, or placed martin in any physical danger? And lastly, why, when an eyewitness told him to stop, and when Zimmerman was on the totally defensive, and when Zimmerman cried out for help, did Martin continue to pummel Zimmerman? THAT is the issue – whether Zimmerman felt in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or loss of life. The evidence suggests he did, and it is THAT which is key. You hypothesize extensively, but Zimmerman’s injuries are not conjecture. And the LACK of any defensive injuries on Martin are also very telling. Ultimately, Zimmerman will be found NOT GUILTY – Martin bit off more than he could chew and paid for his ill-advised indiscrete choice with his life.)
Dear RuleofOrder:
Thanks for reading and for your interesting comment. May I add a bit of clarification?
Zimmerman was acting in his role as the local neighborhood watch captain. Remember that the “chase” didn’t begin until Martin, after clearly and apparently in a challenging manner, approached and looked at Zimmerman for a time. It was only then that Zimmerman left his vehicle and did what the dispatcher asked him to do–inform them what Martin was doing. Clearly Zimmerman was only trying to keep Martin in sight so he could report his position and actions for the responding police officers.
Let us also keep in mind that Zimmerman–and any of us–need nothing more than suspicion in order to watch, or to “follow”–as in keep in sight–anyone else. If Martin simply walked home while being “followed” by Zimmerman, we would likely never have heard of either of them. As you say, Martin had no “obligation” to go home. He could have kept walking for miles if he wished, but Zimmerman could also have “followed” him for miles if he wished. This might have made Martin uneasy, but self-defense would still not be implicated.
Zimmerman asked the dispatcher to have the officers call for his location not because he expected to be out prowling the neighborhood on foot, but because he was some distance from his vehicle and the entrance to the neighborhood where he expected the officers to enter and expected them at any second.
Your minimizing of the assault indicates that you either don’t understand the dynamics of assaults in the real world, or might be choosing to ignore such knowledge. The physical evidence (as it is currently known) does, in fact, support Zimmerman’s account, and what we’ve subsequently learned about Martin is also suggestive of the contention that he could have assaulted Zimmerman without provocation. Police officers quickly learn that juveniles can be uniquely dangerous because they are inherently impulsive and lack restraint. Where an older, more experienced person might strike a single blow and noticing the person they struck was down and stunned and stop the attack, a juvenile would be quite likely to press the attack.
Let’s accept–for the sake of discussion–your “fight” scenario. In that case, there is no “fight,” but an assault by the person who threw the first punch, which all available evidence indicates was Martin.
Let’s also keep in mind that Zimmerman wasn’t “…chasing people at night with a gun,” which directly implies he was holding the weapon and chasing Martin with intent to use it. All of the evidence indicates quite the opposite. Zimmerman was following Martin because he ran away and because he was trying to do as the dispatcher was repeatedly asking. He merely happened to be carrying a concealed weapon at the time.
Remember too that Zimmerman initially reported that Martin was behaving suspiciously, as if he were on drugs. We now know that this was in fact a completely reasonable and accurate observation. Martin was indeed under the influence of drugs.
We can, of course, “what if” into infinity, but the fact remains that Zimmerman did absolutely nothing illegal, and Martin was indeed breaking the law and acting suspiciously. Any rational adult observing Martin as Zimmerman did would likely have thought so too.
Thanks again!
This is gonna be tough, so I am replying to to gents at once, so, give me a bit of lee way. Spelling included. ;)
‘You present a conclusion, but you offer no proximate causal connection between ANY of Zimmerman’s actions and Trayvon Martin’s death. You have presented no action committed by Zimmerman that was either criminal or which placed Trayvon Martin at reasonable fear for his physical safety.’ — As you read along, I clearly spell out what I think are poor decisions on Zimmerman’s behalf. I should clarify, you are right, poor decisions are not criminal activity. They are simply poor deciscions, which is exactly my premise.
“So, Zimmerman left “his ground” to investigate someone else’s? Really? And you have evidence that Zimmerman invaded Martin’s personal space? No? Yeah, I thought not. Again, not a crime to have done what he did, and not a physical threat to Martin” — Yes. Zimmerman left his ground. A lot of his ground. The ground where Zimmerman first spotted Martin, he left it. He then continued to follow some one else, as in investigate what some one else was doing. This is not a hard concept, but I can tell you want to frame things in a very specific content. Fine. GZ left his property (his ground) to follow some one else. It just so happens that Zimmerman’s actions prompted Trayvon to leave where he was standig (his ground) and seek new ground. Hence, to flee.
“After he has CLEARLY acknowledged AND complied with the dispatcher’s recommendation not to?” — Clearly acknowledged, not clearly complied. Zimmerman gave no verbal indication that he was ceasing his actions.
“Hardly the indication of a young man trying to avoid a confrontation” — this cuts both ways. GZ left his car to follow some one. This is not indicative of avoiding a confrontation, either.
“Nice hypothetical situation, but for the fact that neither Zimmerman NOR Dee Dee describe events as you have made them up to be. According to Dee Dee AND Zimmerman there was no prolonged verbal exchange. And as for Zimmerman’s weapon, it is unlikely it was visible in the dark, with his oversized jacket partially zipped up and the weapon in its holster and tucked into Zimmerman’s waistband. Just another hypothetical situation not supported by any evidence, and contradicted by some of it.” — Hence the term “might”, and it still stands that as Zimmerman was going for his cell phone, Trayvon could have reasonably thought he was going for a weapon. Of course niether of them describe it like that, cause if they did, it would be admission of some kind of guilt on their part.
Your bullet points:
1- chase/stalk/follow/hunt. Pick your verbiage, its semantics. He had a gun during this. Hence “He chased/stlaked/followed/hunted with a gun.” I make no mention of him brandishing it, threatening with it, displaying it, etc. Merely that he had it, and with that comes a certain degree of responsibility. I feel though, should GZ not have had a gun, he would have never have left his car.
2- Zimmerman nor Martin committed a crime, but Zimmerman thinks Martin did. In any case, is asking “Hey, you look lost, can I help” is less reasonable than following some one? If you are SO concerned with the situation, ask something. But… that didn’t happen. BTW, sterotypical hoodlums wear hoodies. People in cold and raining weather also wear them. Like… say, that evening. BTW, if you get to use the word “loitering”, I get to use the word chasing. ;)
3- Zimmerman’s ascertation of threat level seems to change from his phone call with the operator, to his interview with the SPD. A LOT of what he told the SPD was strangely absent to his call with the operator. Heck, you can hear it in his voice regarding his tension. It starts off near panicked, then when he Martin runs, you can hear his demeanor shift. It goes from nervous to what I would best call bravado.
“AHHH….but it WAS a judgment call, and not unreasonable. Again, what crime did Zimmerman commit?”— and what crime did Martin commit that started all this? GZ said flat out that Martin is getting away with something. When some one RUNS FROM YOU, and you persue, that is a CHASE. Zimmerman implied Martin had a gun. At least, he wanted to bait the non em working into thinking that, so again, why leave your car?
“Where is the evidence he made any threatening moves, or placed martin in any physical danger?” — this is just as obvious as anything that is exculpatory for Zimmerman’s account of walking… well, anywhere for that matter.
“You hypothesize extensively, but Zimmerman’s injuries are not conjecture. And the LACK of any defensive injuries on Martin are also very telling” — the only think it tells is that GZ is not a ground fighter. If think it some what Ironic that the only thing that put Zimmerman in fear for his life was the very tool that emboldened him to leave his car in the first place. Zimmerman not having a gun, I doubt, would have followed Martin, and obviously Martin couldn’t have “gone for it”, which would leave us with a streetfight.
BTW, yeah, he is gonna be found not guilty of 2nd. It was an over charge. But, as I have mentioned, bad judgement and poor decisions aren’t a crime. Its just bad judgement and poor decisions. Given the nature of what Zimmerman witnessed (on the phone), and his… interesting choice of words before he stated Martin ran, to exiting his vehicle. BTW, do you think the non em meant for GZ to leave his car and follow anyone? From what the operator is going off of, I the picture I get is that he wants GZ to relay information from his current locale, not go following the kid to find out more.
“his ill-advised indiscrete choice with his life” — which choice, btw? To back to Zimm? We just hashed out thats not illegal. To not go home? We just hashed out thats not illegal either. His choice was to go back and find out why he is being followed.
On to Mike!
“Zimmerman was acting in his role as the local neighborhood watch captain.” — with a gun. From what literature and accounts I have read, this is a no-no. Illegal? Of course not but… poor judgement call.
Dear RuleofOrder: I’ll add my comments with yours, but in italics. When this incident happened, Zimmerman wasn’t “on duty” in his NW role. He was legally carrying his concealed handgun. In previous updates, I’ve produced evidence to reveal that it was in fact the Sanford police who recommended that he and his wife arm themselves several years earlier due to dangerous dogs. Considering the weapon arguably ended up saving his life, carrying the weapon might also be considered rather good judgement. We don’t carry concealed weapons because of the threats we expect, but because of those we can’t anticipate.
“after clearly and apparently in a challenging manner”— clearly and apparently don’t need to be used in the same sentence unless the opposite is true. As I have been repeatedly told regarding some of my points: there is no evidence of this. Even on the phone Zimmerman didn’t relate this. He said that he was being checked out, which… well, since Zimmerman was checking Martin out shouldn’t seem like a surprise. It seems to me that GZ keeps finding interesting tidbits that he can shoe horn into his retelling of the tale so as to bolster his case. So, if he is approaching Zimmerman in a challenging manner, doesn’t that mean Zimmerman accepted the challenge?
Zimmerman’s tone and his choice of words make clear he was not only suspicious, but very concerned because Martin was clearly behaving aggressively toward him. From what we know, these “tidbits” have been consistent in his statements from the first minute of police involvement, not as you suggest invented later to justify his actions.
“This might have made Martin uneasy, but self-defense would still not be implicated.”— I would like to point out that this statement, and a few of the statements preceeding it are demonstrating a bias. It is sounding like indeed, Martin has only the duty to flee, and is not allowed to assume the person following him would try and approach. That is not an unreasonable line of thought.
There is no bias involved. I merely state the law. As I spent an entire update explaining, one may defend oneself only against clear and imminent threats, not against potential future threats.
“Zimmerman asked the dispatcher to have the officers call for his location not because he expected to be out prowling the neighborhood on foot, but because he was some distance from his vehicle and the entrance to the neighborhood where he expected the officers to enter and expected them at any second” — so stay on the line and talk them to your location. The moment the operator said Zimmerman’s actions to follow weren’t needed, the call takes a very abrupt turn for Zimmerman to try and get off the line. Smart money says Zimmerman didn’t want to keep hearing the operator say “Sir, please return to your car, no, please, sir, please… we don’t need you to do that”. It makes no sense for Zimmerman to halt the call unless he knows the steps he is about to take will put him beyond what the operator just instructed him.
Not at all. The call indicates that Zimmerman believed Martin was long gone and all that remained was for him to meet with the police. In that case, what would be more reasonable than to make final arrangements–as he did–and hang up? Notice that the dispatcher did not ask him to remain on the phone until the officers arrived.
“The physical evidence (as it is currently known) does, in fact, support Zimmerman’s account, and what we’ve subsequently learned about Martin is also suggestive of the contention that he could have assaulted Zimmerman without provocation” — no, the physical evidence supports some of it. His head doesn’t know who threw the first punch, only that it was injured. Trayvon’s knuckles don’t know who started it, etc. The physical evidence fits nicely into his narrative, but doesn’t mean it supports it. I will refrain from bringing up Zimmerman’s rather checkered past concerning drug use (prescript or other), noted racial remarks, previous arrests or brushes with the law, issues regarding his pay pal account, etc if you can do the same with Martin. Deal?
Excuse me? Zimmerman’s drugs use? Racial remarks? I’m aware of no allegations of illegal drug use, unless you’re going to suggest that anyone taking prescription medications is compromised? To what racial remarks do you refer? The narrative tried to suggest he made some during the incident, but that has completely blown up in the faces of those pursuing the narrative. If you know of others, I’d be interested in links, please. As to Martin’s previous arrests, to my knowledge, his record is clean, and I’ll be dealing with the bond and perjury issues soon. In fact, if you had been following my work in this case from the start, you’d know that I’ve addressed all of these issues–for both people involved. No deal is required, it’s already been done.
“but an assault by the person who threw the first punch, which all available evidence indicates was Martin” — interesting choice of words. All available evidence comes from the person whom shot Martin, and the most motivation to lie about it. There are no eye witnesses to that event that weren’t directly in the altercation, no video, etc that effect.
Because there is no currently known evidence of the type you suggest does not invalidate the evidence that does exist and which you minimize. This is the nature of police work and to those who understand it, not in the least unusual. All available evidence still suggests that it was Martin that threw the first punch.
“Let’s also keep in mind that Zimmerman wasn’t “…chasing people at night with a gun,” which directly implies he was holding the weapon and chasing Martin with intent to use it.” — Was it night? Did Zimmerman give chase? Did he have a gun? How about following people at night with a gun? Better or worse? I directly stated what Zimmerman was doing. The implication you create is exactly that, your creation. I made no mention of where the gun was on his person, merely that it was with him. I made no attempt at Zimmerman’s design with said gun.
I carry a legal concealed weapon where and whenever I can. Does this mean that whenever I’m walking behind anyone, I’m following them with a gun? Does night something change things, making them more sinister? Don’t be coy. You understand the linguistic distinction I drew.
“Zimmerman was following Martin because he ran away and because he was trying to do as the dispatcher was repeatedly asking” — the Operator asked him to follow Martin? I must have missed that. Please, help me out, at what time in the conversation did the operator ask Zimmerman to follow Martin, and how close is it to the part where the operator told Zimmerman we -don’t- need you to follow Martin? Martin expressed his intent to avoid a confrontation by leaving. Zimmerman expressed intent to disregard the obvious disengagement by giving chase.
Again, you’re being coy. The dispatcher repeatedly asked Zimmerman to tell him what Martin was doing, which is precisely what dispatchers are trained to do and are supposed to do. Did the dispatcher specifically say “you must now follow the suspect and keep him in sight at all times?” Certainly not, but again, you’re playing with language rather than acknowledging the reality of the situation. The dispatcher suggested that Zimmerman stop only after he had actually been out of his vehicle trying to keep Martin in sight after Martin ran. From Zimmerman’s breathing and the background sounds on the tape, that’s precisely what Zimmerman did, despite the fact that the dispatcher suggested carried no legal force and as I’ve also previously written, there are times when the smartest thing to do would be to ignore the suggestions of someone who was not actually present and didn’t know what was happening.
“He merely happened to be carrying a concealed weapon at the time.” — the choice to arm or disarm oneself is not something that merely happens, that is a calculated choice.
Of course it is. Again, you try to twist my meaning. Zimmerman was not “chasing” Martin. One cannot chase someone they can’t see. Zimmerman didn’t carry a concealed weapon because he expected the events of that night. Again, he merely happened to be carrying a concealed weapon at the time thing happened, as he regularly did, and as millions of Americans regularly do.
“Remember too that Zimmerman initially reported that Martin was behaving suspiciously, as if he were on drugs. We now know that this was in fact a completely reasonable and accurate observation. Martin was indeed under the influence of drugs.” — again, could you help me out, I haven’t yet seen a toxicology report that states Martin had anything other than trace amounts of THC in his system. BTW, what was in Zimmerman’s system at the time of all this? Ah, yes, good question, no test was done.
Again, I’ve addressed the levels of THC in Martin’s blood repeatedly in previous updates and provided links to sites that can give you specific numbers if you’re truly interested in that. My statement about his drug use is incontrovertible accurate. As I also noted, the state is withholding his urine test results, and I suspect not because they are clean. The SPD did not require drug or alcohol testing of Martin because they had not reason to believe it was necessary. Remember that he was also seen by paramedics at the scene and if they suspected he was drunk or high, they would surely have told the police. The police do not routinely try to drug test people, even people involved in incidents like this, without cause. They had none, so no tests. No coverup, just day to day procedure and common sense.
“was indeed breaking the law and acting suspiciously.” — breaking the law? Oh? Again, please name the crime that started all this. The easy answer is an assault, which by then, the genie is already out of the bottle. Martin was NOT breaking the law. He was walking home. From there, Zimmerman injected himself into a non crime with a sense of non authority escalating it to a chase, hunt, then assault. If you can name me one crime that was committed that from Zimmerman’s first sight of Martin to the point where Zimmerman hung up, I would LOVE to hear it.
“Any rational adult observing Martin as Zimmerman did would likely have thought so too.” — that he was acting suspiciously or breaking the law? Would said rational adult then follow this character based on the description provided to the non em line? That is reasonable? I find that at best a bad idea. In doing so, I would no longer be acting on behalf of my safety, the safety of others, or in defense of mine or anyone else’s property. Our suspicious person fled. This scenario is done, wait for the police, and report the description. That is reasonable. Reasonable would have been to ask this person some innocious question to asses intent. “You look lost”, “Hey man, why not get inside, its raining out”, “You okay, you look a little ill”, etc. Reasonable and common sense are supposed to run in the same circle, right?
Any rational adult would have thought Zimmerman was behaving suspiciously. Zimmerman might have talked with Martin, if he had not suddenly run away.
Neat trick with the italics, if you can manage it. This gonna be tough for me to manage without it, so please bear with.
From the top:
“When this incident happened, Zimmerman wasn’t “on duty” in his NW role” — I can also quote you as saying… “Zimmerman was acting in his role as the local neighborhood watch captain. “. These are contradictory. I don’t have to “be coy” or “twist” your words to demonstrate that.
“..dangerous dogs..”. Dog. Singular. Big Boi, I think was the name. Dog. 1. I bring this up, because its A dog. One dog. I have been attacked by A dog. It was… less than firearm requiring. As a matter of fact, in this instance, I would have preferred a knife or sword. Not a fire arm. But, that is personal preference.
“We don’t carry concealed weapons because of the threats we expect, but because of those we can’t anticipate” — an excellent point, however I would like to point out, given range, location of injury, etc, a knife would have done the same thing. If I -follow- some one, sir, I anticipate the person I am following to be ill at ease. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a PI or something, I don’t know how to tail some one without them knowing. of course, me tailing them means something in of its self. Did Zimmerman do that? ::shrugs:: My CWP is for the defense of my life and property. Was Zimmerman using that some privelege (sp?) in the defense of his? Hm.
“Excuse me? Zimmerman’s drugs use? —– yes, be it prescript or other—– Racial remarks? —- yes, be they at the scene, or other—–I’m aware of no allegations of illegal drug use, —hence my “prescript” addition— unless you’re going to suggest that anyone taking prescription medications is compromised? — or the LACK of prescript meds, yes, the could be—- To what racial remarks do you refer?—those not relevant to this event, which are documented—- The narrative tried to suggest he made some during the incident, but that has completely blown up in the faces of those pursuing the narrative. If you know of others, I’d be interested in links, please.—are you sure? ;) considering the level of reasearch you have done with Martin, I would HATE for you to do the same scrutiny against Zimmerman. It might yield nearly identical results. Did Zimmerman have any tats? Are you SURE Martin had gold teeth, etc. —- As to Martin’s previous arrests, to my knowledge, his record is clean, — arrests are quite different from convictions. Are you SURE his record is clean? I mean, I have seen a LOT of phots of him regarding a mug shot that are not the Martin related ones… again, did you honestly sweep Zimmerman’s past (and Myspace account) like you did with Martin’s Twitter account?)— and I’ll be dealing with the bond and perjury issues soon– here, we agree. Bond and perjury could easily be explained, and in time dealt with resulting in only miscommunication. I will let this part rest—–. In fact, if you had been following my work in this case from the start, you’d know that I’ve addressed all of these issues–for both people involved —- I am not convinced your much racking on behalf of Zimmerman has been so detailed, unless of course you are deferring only to CY.—. No deal is required, it’s already been done.” — I have done my best to inerupt the above statements with my explanation.
“Because there is no currently known evidence of the type you suggest does not invalidate the evidence that does exist and which you minimize.” And the inverse is also true. That is the beauty of no witnesses. You are calling the testimony of the only person with motive to lie as gospel.
“All available evidence still suggests that it was Martin that threw the first punch” — THIS, sir, is being coy. Its not fully appreciating where said “evidence” came from. Much like your repeated statements that the amount of THC in Trayvon’s blood indicates imparement, when… well, ANY amount would indicate imparement. What is not being said is just as important as what as being said, regarding criminal implication.
“whenever I’m walking behind anyone, I’m following them with a gun?…” on the definition of beying Coy… Zimmerman STATED as such. Again, it was night. He was following some one. He had a gun. This isn’t coy, sir. Its a flat statement of fact. Anything you would like to draw from that is your creation.
“you’re playing with language rather than acknowledging the reality of the situation.”… considering the above contradictory terms, and YOUR creation of implication, I don’t think I am the one playing with language, and its not ME that is or isn’t acknowledging the reality of the situation.
“there are times when the smartest thing to do would be to ignore the suggestions of someone who was not actually present and didn’t know what was happening.” — and the fact that Zimmerman didn’t (even though such was never stated), indicates, as I have been vehement about, a BAD CALL. One of MANY in Zimmerman’s handling of the situation.
“Again, I’ve addressed the levels of THC in Martin’s blood repeatedly in previous updates and provided links to sites that can give you specific numbers if you’re truly interested in that.” none of which indicate imparement. Now, despite my “deal” to the contrary, Zimmerman was SUPPOSED to be on a variety of drugs, can we please indicate if that was the case for this incident? Can we verify if Zimmerman was on anything AT ALL?
My post— “He merely happened to be carrying a concealed weapon at the time” you have my response above to which you reply: “Again, you try to twist my meaning”. No, sir. Your meaning is that by use of the word “happened” and “merely” are to try and trivialize or marginalize the right to concealed carry, as though it was fluke accident that it was the case for Zimmerman that night. My CCP is not a fluke or accident. I am -accutely- aware of when I hold a weapon, and what my actions are when holding it. While you –might– view it as only a “right” that you have to pay for, I view it as a right, public trust, and responsibility. As such, I will do NOTHING that might jeopardize any of the above. Yes, that includes following strange individuals past my line of sight. THIS is the part that grates me most about Zimmerman, btw. He didn’t understand the concept of what he was holding, he saw it as a defense against a dog, and apparently, as you put it “merely had it on him” at the time. What a mediocre description for such an awesome privelege. (That, btw, is me twisting words. Please don’t respond or try to mount a defense, is strictly capitalizing on a soft spot, and means nothing more than pixels on a screen for our purposes. From what I have read of your various postings and blogs, you get it. :) )
“Of course it is. Again, you try to twist my meaning. Zimmerman was not “chasing” Martin. One cannot chase someone they can’t see”—- ….. really? Mike, C’mon. I am running after some one. I saw that person cut down an alley. I can’t SEE him anymore, but I saw him cut down it. You know as well as I do the chase is not over. Zimmerman saw Martin, Martin cut down a locale as to obscure line of site, Zimmerman was running to follow, that is a chase. For some one who doesn’t like being coy and twisting words, you seem to do a lot of it.
“Any rational adult would have thought Zimmerman was behaving suspiciously. Zimmerman might have talked with Martin, if he had not suddenly run away.” — again, I will be coy, and call this Freudian. Indeed, any rational adult or child would have considered Zimmerman’s actions suspicious, and ran away from him. Just like Martin did.
Apologies for the correction: the above “I am not convinced your much racking on behalf of Zimmerman has been so detailed, unless of course you are deferring only to CY”– should read as “I am not conviced your MUCK raking on behalf of Zimmerman has been so detailed, unless of course you are deferring only to Confederate Yankee”.
The 1st time George appeared on the witness stand at his bond hearing he lied. He’s such a coward that he is using the last words the kid he admitted killing as his own to escape conviction. 3 audio experts have now confirmed that the screams the night of the killing were not from George.
LISTEN- the screams are from a child (just had 17th birthday a couple of weeks earlier) someone who see their life ending because they have a gun aimed at them. Surely not from someone who has a gun and is losing a fight. A fight in which they say their mouth & nose is being covered by the other person.(Statement from George himself).
George and his wife committed perjury, a felony and yet you see this as okay and seek to blame everyone but them.
You find a way to spin the Zimmerman’s lies to be meaningless. But is proves they have no credibility and are lying to get away with murder.
It goes a long way as to what’s your agenda. (The Devil smiles everytime you make an a post)
Dear Concerned:
As I noted, what confuses me about the bond hearing is that the judge was treating the Zimmerman’s normal finances and the Internet account as separate matters. His questions indicated that, and the Zimmermans responded in that way, which may well be why the prosecutor has not (at least not yet) tried to file charges for perjury.
And I’m afraid I must inform you that the two private audio experts and the two FBI examiners have testified that they cannot say who was screaming, not Zimmerman, not Martin. If you’ll visit Update 5, you’ll find that information and supporting evidence.
If you’ll read a bit more carefully, you notice that I’ve not claimed in this update that Zimmerman was lying or telling the truth, nor am I spinning anything. Rather, I’m reporting the facts as we know them. That, and providing informed analysis about this case and the procedures of the justice system, are my agenda.
You may have noticed that we require a certain level of civility in our discussions here. You are welcome to return and comment, but suggesting the devil is smiling on my writing, or on anyone else, is not acceptable discourse here.
@concerned. Your audio experts are not in fact any form of expert. They have absolutely no credentials to be called experts.
On top of that Trayvon Martin had a deep voice. The voice in the call has a cadence that is very similar to GZ’s cadence.
What you say sling is ridiculous-the 7-11 video shows that the button was on the outside of his hoodie-which he was already wearing. You may want to troll elsewhere slinging your trebuchet “stuff” elsewhere.
Concerned – Why in a calm setting, when asked directly, after hearing the 911 call audeo which recorded the screaming, did Trayvon Martin’s father tell the investigator that the screaming voice was not his son? Just wondering….
If that was your son, and you were suddenly presented with the sounds, would you like to try and deny that he died screaming like that? Would you try to think that your son didn’t go that way.?
To SlingTrebuchet – So, what you are saying is that in a possible murder investigation, Trayvon Martin’s father, when specifically asked by the lead Sanford Police Department investigator whether the screams heard on the 911 audio were his son, he lied? Hmmmm….and you suggest he did so because he was embarrassed that his 17 yr old son went down screaming? Hmmmm….not particularly evidentiary – but I suppose it is an explanation, albeit a feeble one that justifies lying.
I think that what we must try to do here is pretend that we are talking about real human beings with feelings and frailties — rather than about cardboard cut-out characters in our puppet show.
I suspect that either parent would be hard put to identify a voice crying out in such extremis – even in a good recording.
Given that doubt, I suspect that Zimmerman’s father would feel great reluctance to think of that screaming as other than from his own son. The implications of them being otherwise would be horrific for him.
I do think that the term “embarrassment” in the circumstances indicates a lack of understanding of humanity.
There is a father whose son has just being killed. He knows that the boy has been shot. Then a detective plays him a recording, in which agonised screams for help can be heard up to the sound of a shot – then silence.
“Is that your son screaming? ” – “NO, NO, NO, NO, NO”.
The fathers are not scientists dispassionately analysing sound waves.
They are human beings in a time of huge upset.
I really doubt that either of them know for certain who is screaming.
The button:
Two phone calls
In one call, Zimmerman says “He’s got button on his shirt”
In the other call, Martin tells the girl that he is going to put on his hoodie.
The button is awkward under the hoodie or get knocked in the process, so he removes it from his shirt and puts it in the hoodie pocket
To SlingTrebuchet – what is “awkward” is that Dee Dee claims Trayvon told her he was putting his hoodie on at all. Place yourself in Trayvon Martin’s situation. He has just left a 7-11 convenience store and it either appears as if it will rain or it has indeed begun to rain. You are Trayvon Martin talking to Dee Dee. Is it natural for you to say something to the effect, “It’s looking like rain…I’m putting my hoodie on.”? Do 17yr olds narrate such mundane actions? No, it’s not. And no, they don’t.
Now, aside from that, you may recall, if you have indeed listened to the testimony Dee Dee presented to the special prosecutor, that she said after leaving the store Trayvon Martin put his hoodie on. Interesting. Because the 7-11 video clearly shows Trayvon Martin had entered the store WITH his hoodie on. It remained on the entire time he was in the store and was still on as he exited the store. Was he in the habit of removing his hoodie only when he was outside? Or did he do it so often it was merely a random act? If so, why would he tell Dee Dee he was executing such an innocuous random act?
I submit to you that Dee Dee’s mention of a hoodie at all is a result of weak pre-testimony coaching by person or persons whose intentions are not consistent with honesty, and that the mere mention of the hoodie at all by Dee Dee is to lend credence to the argument that she was talking with Trayvon Martin at the time he encountered George Zimmerman.
I still cannot find logic in Dee Dee’s failure to tell a living soul upon learning of Trayvon Martin’s death on Monday, February 27 that she had been speaking to him the evening before, when he encountered a man who was “following him”, and that he and the man got into a physical confrontation. Why do you suppose (realistically please) Dee Dee never told even her MOTHER about this until contacted by the Crump law firm. And why was she unavailable to police and investigators until April 2, 35 days AFTER the shooting took place? Why would such a close acquaintance not come forward earlier when the shooter of her friend was still free and she had evidence that might put him behind bars?
You may be able to suggest she was “afraid”, but I can’t believe her fear reached such depths that there would be no mention whatsoever of this conversation at ALL to a parent, friend, teacher, Twitter, FaceBook, etc.
Your problem is doing things like denying that Martin was in conversation with the girl is that such calls are not a matter of someone’s opinion or faulty memory.
They were logged automatically.
The only issue with those logs is that the timestamps are rounded to the minute. It has therefore not been possible to precisely synchronise them with Zimmerman’s call. There is a margin of uncertainty of up to a minute.
Never the less, they evidence that the calls took place.
As I understand it, the girl was traced from the phone logs, as opposed to coming forward.
Unlike Zimmerman’s call, which was recorded, we have what is to my mind an unsatisfactory recording of the girl being interviewed by a police investigator. The interview does not establish a clear timeline of what was said at what second. I listen to that and I hear repetition. The interviewer is picking up on the general flavour of the conversation rather than obtaining as good as possible a times narrative.
Yes, kids do talk of mundane things like rain and effects,.
“What are you doing right now?” “Well it’s raining hard and I am reading a rather interesting article concerning the impact of the writing of Proust on the early songs of Madonna. The rain is making the pages soggy.”
I can certainly think of times when after being caught in heavy rain, I removed my sodden outer layer when I got to shelter. If I have to venture onwards and there is still some rain, I would tend to don it again, particularly if it has a hood.
I do think that if the girl were coached, that someone could have created something more coherent.
What you are suggesting is that the person coaching her had thought about the button being in the pocket – and then invented a story about hoodie wearing so that nobody would suspect the ulterior motive for it being there. That might be a little extreme?
Getting back to the button. It’s not unlikely that it came loose during removal and re- wearing of the hoodie. The pins on those things are not always the best. They tend to flap about.
To SlingTrebuchet –
Sorry Sling, but my problem is not in denying that Martin and Dee Dee were talking. I submit to you that if they WERE talking, Dee Dee’s account of what was said (and I reiterate – IF they were talking) is grossly inconsistent with known facts. Id, however, submit that they were NOT talking during the moments Dee Dee has related to the special prosecutor.
First, before we even get to the content of this so-called phone conversation: I have a REAL problem with someone’s credibility when they wait 35 days before they speak with investigators of the shooting of someone they have known since kindergarten, when they KNOW they were almost certainly the last person to speak with that person before they were shot and killed. I have a REAL problem believing someone who didn’t tell a living soul she was ever ON the phone with that person – even after she learned that person was shot and killed the very night she allegedly spoke with him. She told no friend, no parent, no teacher, no police, and never made a single reference on any of her social networking accounts (Twitter, FaceBook, etc.) that would lead ANyone to believe she had been speaking with him during the final moments of his LIFE!
OK, now let’s get to the facts Dee Dee indicates in her “phone conversation” with Trayvon Martin. There are too many to point out here that indicate her story is fabricated, but I will touch on a few:
1. She stated that Trayvon Martin put his hoodie on after he left the 7-11. How is it, then, that the 7-11 video shows the hoodie was already ON when he entered the store, remained ON while he walked around in the store, and was still ON as he exited the store? Small point, sure…but there are more.
2. Back to the hoodie. Imagine yourself walking outside talking on your cell phone to a friend, and it appears it might rain, or has started to rain, even slightly. Is putting your hoodie on actually an action you will narrate to your friend? Are you going to tell her, “It looks like rain, I’m putting my hoodie on.”? Or are you just going to do it and continue talking? I submit human nature would not cause ANYone to narrate such an innocuous action – but it IS consistent with Zimmerman’s call that Martin was wearing a hoodie – and very coincidentally so, I think, as if deliberately so.
3. Dee Dee said Martin was tired, breathing hard, trying to get away from Zimmerman who was hot on his heels. How can that be so??? Trayvon martin’s route from where he began running to Brandi Green’s condo was a 450ft line. He could have walked it in 90 seconds. Do it yourself. Walk 100ft, mark the time, and then multiply it by 4.5. You will almost certainly end up with a time that would not exceed the remainder of Zimmerman’s phone call with the dispatcher – which means Zimmerman was still talking with the dispatcher (calmly) when Martin easily could have been home – and running 450 feet got him winded? So winded he could run anymore? And to the point that an overweight Zimmerman could have caught up with him? Not even remotely plausible, sorry.
Mike will certainly address the Dee Dee call in the next day or two, but lending ANY credibility to her is really a very very imprudent thing to do. I truly feel very very sorry for her if she is ever going to testify at trial. She will be reduced to mincemeat by the defense.
I think that if you want to talk about distances and speeds, you should consider those for Zimmerman as well.
Have a look at http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com
We don’t actually know what either of them were doing over about 2 minutes between Zimmerman’s call ending and the struggle beginning.
Zimmerman’s movements as as unexplained as are Martin’s.
I don’t think that either of them were involved in a simple linear chase or that any chasing went on for very long.
I think that O’Mara will do his very best to keep Zimmerman off the stand.
Lord knows what is in Zimmerman’s various statements. O’Mara will try to classify them as involuntary and inadmissible I would say.
From the little that has leaked out, there are many inconsistencies and assertions that simply don’t work.
Slingtrebuchet –
You are falling into the pit of suggesting that Zimmerman must prove his innocence. He does not. All his attorney must do is sprinkle the prosecution’s case with reasonable doubt. What is reasonable undeniable is that Trayvon Martin, depicted as being chased and afraid, did NOT continue to Brandi Green’s condo. Instead, he was 300ft north of that location more than 5 minutes after he began running – allegedly TOWARD her condo. It cannot be logically explained away, except that he must have been more interested in being near Zimmerman than his supporters would try to lead us to believe.
NOTHING suggests that Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin any farther south than the “T” in the sidewalk. What he was doing in the interim is not particularly relevant – the point being there is NO evidence to suggest he continued to follow Trayvon Martin once discouraged to do so by the dispatcher – and he did in fact point out to the dispatcher 90 seconds after Trayvon Martin began running that he didn’t know where Trayvon Martin was.
You can try to point at Zimmerman for some unknown action, but what cannot be denied is that Trayvon Martin simply did NOT attempt to go home. It simply is impossible.
Juggler,
I’m more interesting in finding out what happened – rather than what might happen in a court.
What you seem to be doing here is questioning the actions of Martin, but not questioning the actions of Zimmerman.
It is obvious that Martin did not go home.
The reason for that is not necessarily that he wanted to be near Zimmerman.
If he did not know that Zimmerman had left the truck, he could relax and get on with his conversation with the girl – without Chuck back at home listening in.
If he had done that, then when he noticed Zimmerman arriving at the top of the area, the sensible option would be to freeze where he was.
If he was going to attack Zimmerman, why wait over two minutes?
It is obvious if you pay attention to the recording and to the location that Zimmerman
(1) Left his truck and headed up to the dark pathway area without knowing where Martin was.
(2) Ignored good advice from the Dispatcher that ‘following’ was not required.
(3) Changed from a sensible course of meeting the patrol at the mailboxes
(4) Remained in the dark area where he had last seen Martin for 2 minutes and 19 seconds from the call ending to the time the struggle was noticed.
(5) Had already been in the area before that time gap for 1 minute and 27 seconds while he completed the call.
(6) Was clearly aware during that time that Martin could have been within earshot “Oh crap. I don’t want to give that all out”
The “not following” argument is more than a little contrived.
At the time he said “OK” he was leaving the roadway and starting on the path.
He himself considered his activity to be fairly described as following. Are you following him? – Yeah”.
He didn’t break his stride then. He kept on going. Listen to the recording. Not the slightest change in the sound of his movements.
If he considered that his activity before “OK” was following, then his activity after the “OK” was following.
Only when he stopped at the top of the area could he have an option to be ‘not following’.
So there he was, at the top of the dark area. We know from his words that he realised that Martin could be close by. “Oh crap. I don’t want to give that all out”
The Neighbourhood Watch mantra is “Observe from a distance”. He clearly felt that he had no guarantee of “distance”, and he certainly had no option of “observing” in those conditions.
You want to know why Martin didn’t go home.
Others want to know why Zimmerman
(a) left the truck without knowing where Martin was
(b) did not return immediately to the truck on realising that he could not observe Martin – while at the same time being in an unsafe position with Martin possibly close to him.
(c) went looking for a street sign /address, logically as a replacement for meeting at the mailboxes, and then left that address to head back for his truck (and the mailboxes) – incidentally passing a particular location in which he believed Martin might have been hiding.
All are valid questions.
You have your own answer to the Martin question.
I suggested an alternative.
Do you have any answers for the Zimmerman questions?
Sling –
I do not limit myself to the Zimmerman call. I, like you, believe it is probably the most reliable piece of evidence to detail Zimmerman’s movements, but I believe also that time and distance in this case play a significant role, and I stand by my conclusion that Trayvon Martin did not attempt to return home to Brandi Green’s condo. Too much time passed during which he could safely have done so unobstructed. Too little cumulative distance was covered from the moment he began running to the fatal shot to support even a reasonable argument that he attempted to go home.
As for George Zimmerman’s actions – again – he remained too far north of the Green condo for anyone to reasonably argue that he remained in pursuit of a Trayvon Martin intent on returning home to watch the NBA All-Star Game.
I place NO value on Dee Dee’s statements, but to show indicators of coaching or perhaps even witness tampering.
We can guess as to George Zimmerman’s activity and location all we want, and we will never come to a definite conclusion. Until George Zimmerman has been found to be deceitful, however, in a description of his actions – until he claims things that are unrealistic to claim concerning his and Trayvon Martin’s behavior on the evening of February 26 – until evidence surfaces that shows he is being dishonest about that, I will guardedly defer to Zimmerman’s own statements as to what occurred. That is not to say I believe Zimmerman blindly. I do not. But I have yet to see evidence of any kind to contradict Zimmerman’s version of events as we know it. There may be alternate explanations. There may be witnesses whose statements do not support Zimmerman’s version, but I have yet to see of any evidence that specifically trumps Zimmerman’s own account.
Juggler
I do not believe that I have seen anyone assert that Martin went home – other than people who have unsubstantiated theories that he went home, went inside, stayed outside, ran around, doubled back, outflanked and a bunch of other stuff.
If I were to guess – and it would be just a guess – I would say that he entered the central path area and stopped near or in one of the dark back porches to talk with the girl in peace.
How and exactly where the two came initially together, I have no idea.
It seems that a loud argument of some significant length occurred before the sound became a series of calls for help.
There is some confused eyewitness statements involving running.
There is some statement about a belief that the sounds heard indicated the argument moved along the path.
All we get out of Zimmerman is a story that Martin accosted him as he walked along the East-West path, Martin said something – he answered No – Martin said something – then decked and pinned him.
This is totally at odds with the earwitness statements and with the location of the body.
One of the things he apparently claimed is that Martin circled his truck during the call. This was in the leaks to the Orlando Sentinel and also mentioned on the stand by Gilbreath at the first bond hearing.
I examined the call recording to see if this was possible.
I don’t know if you checked out that page in my blog (the Maps page).
I say that the circling was impossible given the time and the combination of Zimmerman’s words and tone. It’s a mathematical impossibility. The fact that Zimmerman did not mention such a thing during the call is not absolutely definitive. However, the numbers and Zimmerman’s voice are.
In the page, I advise people to physically time themselves doing such a circling. When they have that, they listen to what Zimmerman is saying over the time period up to the point when Martin has clearly passed onwards.
It can not have happened.
Don’t even think about a version of circling in which Martin asked him “Why are you following me, and Zimmerman answered that he was not. This is What Martin’s father says he was told by Sanford PD.
The only survivor is Zimmerman, and Martin can not contradict him.
So unless there is some sort of definitive forensic evidence, it comes down to Zimmerman’s credibility.
If it is found that his account has major inconsistencies and impossibilities, then it calls everything he says is in question.
The situation would then be that he was reckless and ignored NW guidelines of which he was patently aware. He shot someone, and he would be seen to be ‘creative’ in his explanations.
Credibility is absolutely essential for him.
If he has messed up in his statements, his only hope is that O’Mara can keep his statements off the evidence and himself off the stand.
The prosecution mentioned inconsistencies in statements and incompatibilities with physical evidence.
O’Mara needs to find a way of making statements inadmissible – perhaps linked to the manner in which Zimmerman waived his right to an attorney.
A problem for him in that is that Zimmerman had recently achieved an associates degree in criminal law studies.
Sling – You wrote the following (your words in quotes – my responses clearly marked)>
“If I were to guess – and it would be just a guess – I would say that he entered the central path area and stopped near or in one of the dark back porches to talk with the girl in peace.”
Response: If you can provide any kind of evidence (other than statements by the likes of Crump and de la Rionda) that Trayvon Martin was even ON the phone at that time, I might entertain that as a possibility. Otherwise, any reference to Trayvon Martin even being on the phone at any point after he took off running is mere supposition. Because I still have problems accepting that Dee Dee was talking with him immediately prior to the shooting, learned of his death the very next day (which she did), and said absolutely NOTHING to anyone, or on her social networking accounts referencing such a conversation in such temporal proximity to the encounter and shooting.
“All we get out of Zimmerman is a story that Martin accosted him as he walked along the East-West path, Martin said something – he answered No – Martin said something – then decked and pinned him. This is totally at odds with the earwitness statements and with the location of the body.”
Response: That is NOT all we “get out of Zimmerman”. We have received only bits and pieces of Zimmerman’s many hours of post-shooting interviews with the police. Had Zimmerman’s explanations been anywhere NEAR as incomplete as you imply, he could not have convinced authorities not to arrest him the very night of the shooting.
“One of the things he apparently claimed is that Martin circled his truck during the call. This was in the leaks to the Orlando Sentinel and also mentioned on the stand by Gilbreath at the first bond hearing.”
Response: I don’t recall Gilbreath commenting that Zimmerman claimed any such thing – that Martin circled his car. Would love to have you point to a link (and time of testimony) for Gilbreath’s comment. I suspect Zimmerman’s comments were taken out of context. As far as Gilbreath, I shrug my shoulder at how this man could be considered an investigator in the first place. His comments (which he signed) in the probable cause affidavit are ridiculous.
“The prosecution mentioned inconsistencies in statements and incompatibilities with physical evidence.”
Response: PLEASE…don’t post anything the prosecution has said and expect me to believe it. I have seen de la Rionda in action at the bond hearing, and have heard him interview multiple witnesses. He is a minor league player in a major league ball park.
Juggler
Have a look at http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/05/minute-by-minute-timeline-of-trayvon-martins-death/
This is someone who sounds a bit like me :)
The page has a link to PDF of the T-Mobile call logs.
Then it analyses the Zimmerman call, stitching in the Martin/Girl calls.
The T-Mobile timestamps are not exact – up to 59 seconds off.
They are not good for exact synching of the calls within the recording of Zimmerman’s call, but they do show that the calls were in progress at the time.
Online transcripts of the bond hearing are a mess, with CNN being awful.
That’s sort of
Voice: “Now Mr Zimmerman, did you or did you not strangle a kitten?”
Zimmerman: ” I c……” AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORS.
The Orlando Sentinel has been close to the story, with someone inside Sanford PD feeding them. One report covering the bond hearing:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-03/news/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-source-police-department
I think there is a limit of two hyperlinks in this blog system, so I’ll follow up with a link re Sanford PD telling Martin’s father of a circling during which words were exchanged
Juggler,
Part two of the comment:
Online transcripts of the bond hearing are a mess, with CNN being awful.
That’s sort of
Voice: “Now Mr Zimmerman, did you or did you not strangle a kitten?”
Zimmerman: ” I c……” AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORS.
The Orlando Sentinel has been close to the story, with someone inside Sanford PD feeding them. One report covering the bond hearing:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-03/news/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-source-police-department
Juggler
Part three of the comment
This is a link to an article re Sanford PD telling Martin’s father that Martin walked up to the truck and had a conversation with Zimmerman.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403
It’s a crazy situation.
A circling that could not have happened. A conversation that didn’t take place.
Unless there is a trial and statements are produced, all sorts of questions are going to be left hanging – and will cause nothing but ongoing conflict and mistrust.
Many people do indeed signal many seemingly “irrelevant” matters that their dialog partner on the other end can’t see, like e.g., hold on a second I’ll get a pen, or, I can’t listen for a second, I have to pull off my shirt… I belong to the people that communicate everything people can’t see but should know anyway for one reason or another, e.g. I do not want them to tell everything twice, since they can’t know, I won’t be able to hear them for a couple of seconds, and I appreciate it if my partner on the other end of the line does the same.
You are falling into the pit of suggesting that Zimmerman must prove his innocence.
I am a bloody foreigner, but, are you suggesting in the US you don’t need to prove you were in danger and needed to protect yourself? Does that mean you can shoot anybody you like and nothing will happen to you?
The issue for me isn’t that he does have to prove his innocence, he already admitted to having shot Trayvon Martin after all, but he has to prove he was in mortal danger. I belong to the people that find the scratches not very convincing, admittedly; just as I find it hard to believe Trayvon Martin was a killer.
As I understand it, in one case–SYG–the prosecution has the burden of proof, it has to show that you weren’t in mortal danger, this may be the best strategy for Zimmerman, in other normal self-defense scenario Zimmerman would have to proof that he was in mortal danger, thus he would have the burden of proof.
In either of the scenarios he wouldn’t be innocent of having killed somebody, he would only be innocent of first or second degree murder, since he committed a “justifiable” murder to protect himself. Clairvoyant that he is he even reported that dangerous teenager to 911 before doing so. I am slightly ironic again.
I also understand that the SYG legislation is a lottery, but still may be easier to shoot someone, if you do not want new troubles due to your earlier pretrial diversion or domestic violence history. Just a thought.
To leander22:
You wrote the following (your words in quotes, my responses clearly marked):
“Many people do indeed signal many seemingly “irrelevant” matters that their dialog partner on the other end can’t see, like e.g., hold on a second I’ll get a pen, or, I can’t listen for a second, I have to pull off my shirt… I belong to the people that communicate everything people can’t see but should know anyway for one reason or another, e.g. I do not want them to tell everything twice, since they can’t know, I won’t be able to hear them for a couple of seconds, and I appreciate it if my partner on the other end of the line does the same.”
Response: I submit that if you are intending to explain an anticipated delay in communication, certainly as a courtesy to the person with whom you are communicating, you might do that. I highly doubt, however, that you would narrate innocuous actions that have little to no involvement in the conversation at hand. My characterization of Dee Dee’s statement indicating she knew when and why Trayvon Martin put his hoodie up was merely one of several examples that makes her narrative suspect. If it was one or two statements, ok. But one cannot reasonably explain away each and everyone at will.
“I am a bloody foreigner, but, are you suggesting in the US you don’t need to prove you were in danger and needed to protect yourself? Does that mean you can shoot anybody you like and nothing will happen to you?”
Response: You appear to be ignoring the wealth of evidence the Sanford Police Department had at their disposal on the very night (and during the hours afterward) of the shooting. They collected evidence from the scene, interviewed witnesses, interviewed Zimmerman, photographed him in detail. They could not find evidence that contradicted his account that the shooting was in self-defense. In fact, the evidence they collected corroborated his account – which is why he was not arrested then. And his arrest has only come because an over-zealous special prosecutor is intent on pushing for a trial.
“The issue for me isn’t that he does have to prove his innocence, he already admitted to having shot Trayvon Martin after all, but he has to prove he was in mortal danger. I belong to the people that find the scratches not very convincing, admittedly; just as I find it hard to believe Trayvon Martin was a killer.”
Response: The fallacy in your position is a misunderstanding of Florida law, and the law of self-defense in general in the US. There is no requirement to be only in mortal danger (if by mortal danger, you mean that someone must reasonably believe they will lose their life if deadly force is not used in self defense). The applicable Florida law says that Zimmerman had to reasonably be in fear of losing his life OR of suffering serious bodily injury. Your comment about “the scratches not very convincing” is indicative of a mindset unable or unwilling to take Zimmerman’s injuries in perspective. Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, lacerations to the back of his head that would not have occurred by merely mildly bumping it, and multiple scrapes and contusions. He was on his back on the ground, and all evidence points to the fact that Trayvon Martin was beating him. Forgive me, but you seem to be measuring Zimmerman’s right to self-defense from the point of view of a Monday morning quarterback’s assessment of the injuries he received, and NOT on what his perception reasonably could have been (or was) during receipt of said injuries. I submit to you that unless you do the latter, you have no idea how afraid of serious bodily injury Zimmerman reasonably was, or how in fear of losing his life he may have reasonably been at the time. The law does NOT measure the injury. It measures the circumstances and whether a reasonable person could conclude that serious bodily injury or loss of life were a real concern.
“As I understand it, in one case–SYG–the prosecution has the burden of proof, it has to show that you weren’t in mortal danger, this may be the best strategy for Zimmerman, in other normal self-defense scenario Zimmerman would have to proof that he was in mortal danger, thus he would have the burden of proof. “
Response: Again…mortal danger need not be proven in hindsight or even foresight…see above.
“In either of the scenarios he wouldn’t be innocent of having killed somebody, he would only be innocent of first or second degree murder, since he committed a “justifiable” murder to protect himself. Clairvoyant that he is he even reported that dangerous teenager to 911 before doing so. I am slightly ironic again.”
Response: Your definition of murder is erroneous. The taking of another person’s life is homicide. But not all killing is murder (eg., a state executioner pulling the switch that injects fatal chemicals into a death-row inmate; a homeowner shooting a home invader; a Soldier on the front lines killing an enemy combatant, etc.) Murder is a crime. If you wanted to say “justifiable homicide”, feel free, but “murder” is by definition a crime for which punishment is not only available, but necessary. Also, “911” and the number Zimmerman called are two very different things. 911 is called in dire emergencies. The phone number Zimmerman called was to the NON-emergency Sanford Police Department dispatcher. At the time of the call, Zimmerman did not perceive Martin as a particular physical threat. He was merely calling to report a suspicious person whom he believed warranted police involvement.
@ Sling Trebuchet. Your connecting the hoodie and the button is totally off base, for coaching the girl r not. DeeDee does not mention the button and neither does the prosecutor-or Mr. Crump for that matter. There is also no evidence that he took off the entire garment as you are suggesting. The “hoodie” is the hood of the garment as far as I can see. To make it the entire garment, if I am interpreting your post correctly seems a red herring to me. Just something to try to throw everyone off the fact that in the ABC phone interview that the girlfriend actually states that “He said this man was watching him so he put his hoodie on” which is in fact a crime in Florida and many other states as well. The fact that Mr. De La Riondo pointed it out in his interview and she replies, because it was still dripping a little” reads volumes to me. The fact that you are also totally changing the narrative to mean he had removed the entire garment and then put it back on also reads volumes to me.
Worry not citizen.
I don’t think the button is a big deal.
I entirely agree with you – It seems a red herring to me.
I only mentioned it because my attention was called to a theory put forward here that Martin had removed he button and placed it in his pocket in preparation for an assault.
I simply offered an alternative reasoning for a button to be in his pocket.
If there is some particular significance associated with this taking off and putting on of the hoodie in the overall picture, I am at a loss as to what it might be.
I can’t imagine why someone would bother to invent a story about it for the girl to regurgitate. How on earth could such a thing affect matters?
Sling –
You wrote:
“I can’t imagine why someone would bother to invent a story about it for the girl to regurgitate. How on earth could such a thing affect matters?”
I will explain. In the Zimmerman-dispatcher phone call, Zimmerman mentions the mailbox area, the hoodie, Trayvon Martin running toward the back entrance.
In HER testimony, Dee Dee mentions the hoodie – telling the prosecutor that Trayvon Martin put it on – something I seriously doubt he would have narrated to her.
In HER testimony, Dee Dee mentions the mailbox area, and even begins to describe it – is that somethingn Trayvon would also have done? Or did she become aware of the physical description of the mailbox area some other way?
In HER testimony, Dee Dee mentions Trayvon Martin running toward Daddy’s house.
In HER testimony, Dee Dee mentions Trayvon describing a white man in a car on his cell phone.
All of these are KNOWN realities from the Zimmerman call, and having actually listened to Dee Dee’s entire special prosecution testimony, I am convinced her mention of them was to legitimize her statements.
From the above list, I am suspicious that Trayvon Martin would have clearly seen someone in a late model SUV in the dark, and be able to tell whether they were white, black or hispanic, AND talking on a cell phone unless he got very very close to that vehicle. I have yet to see any statement showing he did. But it certainly matches with Zimmerman’s account – perhaps another point mentioned to gain legitimacy for her statement.
Pray tell? It’s a crime to put a hoodie on? Well, would you be so kind to give me the legal code in Floria, I do have to read that law. I’d appreciate the respective laws in other states too. That’s something really amazing, I would have missed without you.
“He said this man was watching him so he put his hoodie on” which is in fact a crime in Florida and many other states as well.
Do a little research yourself on it will you. Apparently you believe you know everything already. I could locate it again but some people want to talk without the info necessary and let others do all of there research for them. I am tired of doing other peoples research.
Hoodie laws- for you who can’t do your own research
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/876.13
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/876.14
west virg.-
http://t.co/iTcvqdTy
Non applicable. One: it doesn’t conceal the face. Pull your hood over your head, and look in the mirror. All your features are still plainly visibile. Contrary arguments would mean sunglasses are just as suspect as a hoodie.
Two, “or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the state.” It could be argued that a) the property was private and Martin did not appear, with his identity concealed, as he was walking with his hood off, apparently before hand. Lastly, I think a some dude has a razor in describing this: it was cold out, and raining. After leaving whatever shelter Martin had, he drew his hood for protection from the elements.
Juggler,
Yes I see what you are saying – that her account of the conversation has been manufactured with some known bits put in to lend credibility.
Nothing is impossible.
However, if someone coached her , they did a really bad job.
Her account of the words exchanged just before the line dropped went
Martin: Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: What are you doing here?
– sounds of struggle and line drops –
Zimmerman’s account of the only words exchanged is (apparently)
Martin: You got a problem, homie?
Zimmerman: No
MArtin: You do now
– immediate punch by Martin, knocking Zimmerman to the ground, whereupon Martin straddles him to begin banging his head on the pavement and punching.
Her account could at least have had made Zimmerman a bit more aggressive – a bit more like someone hunting. “I got you now” or something. That would support a ‘chasing’ story better.
Her account does not account for the loud argument reported by ear-witnesses. Before the calls for help started, there appears to have been a longer exchange than either account describes. It is possible that the louder argument reported could have taken place after the line dropped.
Zimmerman’s account similarly does not explain the earwitness reports of an argument.
In his account, he only says a single word – “No”
To take a line from Monty Python – “That’s not an argument”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
It would be interesting to hear Zimmerman on the stand and to see his statements.
Apart from the words exchanged, his account also has a glaring inconsistency.
If he never went South of the T-junction, and got decked and pinned at the T-junction as he was returning from getting a house number at Retreat View Circle, how did he end up decked and pinned 50 feet South along the central path?
“able to tell whether they were white, black or hispanic, AND talking on a cell phone unless he got very very close to that vehicle. I have yet to see any statement showing he did.”
You need to listen to the recording of Zimmerman’s call. Zimmerman tells you how close Martin got. He can only give a better description of Martin as he gets closer. Start at 1:00 if you want to save yourself a minute. Martin walks right past the SUV – So close that Zimmerman gets freaked. Listen to his voice.
There seems to be a confirmed statement that Zimmerman rolled up his window when Martin was close. It was in the Orlando Sentinel leaks from Sanford PD and from prosecutor Gilbreath on the stand at the first bond hearing.
Sling –
Let me correct myself. I should have said there is no evidence Zimmerman was “appreciably south of the ‘T'” which would then be accurate. This would evince no “glaring inconsistency”, as you implied. If you look at a map of the neighborhood, you can see that, depending on the direction from which Martin approached Zimmerman, the two’s momentum immediately after their confrontation began could easily have driven them south-southwest into John’s (Witness #6) immediate back yard. That can at least be explained reasonably – after all, 50 feet is a relatively short distance for two people in an altercation…300ft is not.
Again…this is my 3rd post on this now. What explanation is there for a scared 17yr old who has PLENTY of time to reach his alleged destination NOT doing so in the roughly 90 seconds a slow walk would have got him there, and instead, five minutes later was still 300ft short of his alleged destination.
Yes, Zimmerman was able to tell that Martin was black when Martin walked toward him. But keep in mind that Zimmerman was in a closed vehicle at night – much less likely that Martin saw him as clearly – or even clearly enough in the dark of a closed vehicle at night to see his color and/or whether he was on the phone – but as I said, it fits in with what Dee Dee would already have heard just from listening to the audio of the Zimmerman call.
I, for one, do not lend ANY credibility to Dee Dee’s account. She never came forward…never told a living soul she had even been talking with someone who died only moments later. I do not believe any conversation she may have had with Trayvon Martin on February 26 took place during the time immediately surrounding the encounter with Zimmerman. I believe Dee Dee was coached for her phone interview for ABC and perhaps for her special prosecutor testimony – and yes, poorly so. She had ample time to review Zimmerman’s call and try to make her story believable by integrating what was said in that call into her own account.
She is clearly not Einstein on the stand and with de la Rionda leading her, even then she didn’t do too well. She will crumble under O’Mara’s questioning if the prosecution mercilessly decides to pursue a conviction.
“If you look at a map of the neighborhood, you can see that, depending on the direction from which Martin approached Zimmerman, …”
If you had a look at the link that I posted up above somewhere, you’ll understand that I have indeed studied the maps closely, and measured out distances on them.
Again, we only get Zimmerman’s side of the story from leaks about his statements and from what his family/friends indicate he told them. His father also reported his observation of the video re-enactment done the following day.
The story is that Zimmerman was moving East to West along the path – returning from getting a house number in Retreat View Circle and headed for his truck in Twin Pines Lane.
Martin is said to have approached from left and behind as Zimmerman neared the T-junction
This means that he approached from the South East, and any momentum would carry them North West of the T-junction.
I don’t think that there was any momentum. From what we know of Zimmerman’s description, they had a short opportunity to exchange words before any physical contact happened. There is a report from a neighbour of the parents that the parents told them that they understood that the gun was seen at that point. – as Zimmerman reached for his phone.
The problem is that the story involved Zimmerman getting decked and pinned immediately, giving Zimmerman no reasonable means to extricate himself and having no option but to shoot.
If that happened, they could not have ranged over 50 feet in the struggle.
As for the girl, I have genuine difficulty in attempting to get inside her head. The words she uses are English, but she is not speaking a language that I can interpret as definitively describing events. I know nothing about her background, environment or attitudes to the world.
For myself in the circumstances, I would have been making noises immediately. No doubt about it. But I can’t speak for her. I’m quite certain that her world is totally different to mine. I can not explain her.
In my own analysis in the blog/site I mentioned, I don’t place any reliance on the girl’s call. I mention it as a possible indication and no more.
My analysis is centred on the words and sounds in the recording of Zimmerman’s call. That is the only solid piece of evidence available to us on what happened leading up to the final moments. It comes direct from Zimmerman at the time. it does not depend on memory.
The leaks from the investigation and the reports of his family probably give dependable indications of what Zimmerman told police. I use those in my analysis.
Anything outside of that has to be conjecture.
a scared 17yr old who has PLENTY of time to reach his alleged destination NOT doing so in the roughly 90 seconds a slow walk would have got him there, and instead, five minutes later was still 300ft short of his alleged destination.
What evidence is there that he didn’t stay at Ms Green’s house, where police visited his father the next day, as you suggest above?
Leander, you quoted me by pasting the following: “a scared 17yr old who has PLENTY of time to reach his alleged destination NOT doing so in the roughly 90 seconds a slow walk would have got him there, and instead, five minutes later was still 300ft short of his alleged destination.”
Then you asked: “What evidence is there that he didn’t stay at Ms Green’s house, where police visited his father the next day, as you suggest above?”
I am not sure what you’re getting at. Are you suggesting that I implied Trayvon Martin was not residing at Brandi Green’s condo during his 10-day school suspension? I am not implying any such thing. What I am saying specifically is that had Trayvon Martin intended to make a bee-line to the residence when he took off running (during the Zimmerman phone call), he would have had an obstructed route and WOULD have made it there within 90 seconds if all he had done was walk relatively slowly. But FIVE minutes after taking off running, he was 300ft away from that condo getting shot. My point is he didn’t try to go home. I do not believe any reasonable person could conclude that he did. And with that being reasonably excluded as Trayvon Martin’s intent, one is left to ask why he was so far north of Brandi Green’s residence, knowing someone had been following him, and IN a confrontation with that very person who had been following him.
I believe reasonable people connecting the dots would conclude that Trayvon Martin was not afraid, and instead was in the mood for a confrontation.
Glad to see this – despite the trolls.
Chris
Remember the ABC interview where DeeDee stated ,”Remember “This man was watching him so he put his hoodie on”. REference the hoodie laws
Yes, reference the hoodie laws, and refer to the defintion of public place via those same laws. Doesn’t fit.
check both of them thanks
“the term “public place” includes all walks, alleys, streets, boulevards, avenues, lanes, roads, highways, or other ways or thoroughfares dedicated to public use or owned or maintained by public authority; and all grounds and buildings owned, leased by, operated, or maintained by public authority.” — Residential streets in a gated community are not dedicated to public use, nor are they maintained by public authority. The grounds are private property.
876.13 doesn’t apply by the above disqualifier.
“No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing a mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, demand entrance or admission or enter or come upon or into the premises, enclosure, or house of any other person in any municipality or county of this state.” — Martin didn’t do this. The location he was at was a location on private property that was for purposes of his dwelling at the time. He demanded entrance into no one’s home other than “his”.
I have no interest in applying WV laws to Florida.
The fact that DeeDee speaks with a dialect is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the truth. Majority of teens mumble around adults. Addressing how someone speaks as a measurement if legitimacy is usually someone racist way of disregarding what is said
Dear Bella:
thanks for reading and commenting. You did read my explanation for rending Dee Dee’s speech accurately? If you’ll also read Update 11, you’ll see that the transcript has everything to do with accuracy and nothing to do with racism. All race cards are expired at this Internet ATM.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 12: Perjury and–Perjury? « Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Homepage
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 37: Shellie Zimmerman | Stately McDaniel Manor
Reblogged this on A world at war.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 37.2: Perjury and Malicious Prosecution | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 53: All White People Are Racist! | Stately McDaniel Manor